.THE  TARIFF  MADE   PLAIN. 


SEVEN  SHORT  CONVERSATIONS  THAT 
BRING  OUT  BOTH  SIDES 


PROOFS  CITED  AND  ACADEMIC  AND  POPULAR 
ERRORS  CORRECTED 


BY 


ALBERT  CLARKE,  A.  M., 

Secretary  for  seventeen  years  of  the  Home  Market  Club,  and  Chairman  of  th, 
U.  S.  Industrial  Commission  of  1898  to  1902. 


or  THF 
UNIVERSITY    ! 


THIRTY-FIFTH  THOUSAND 


BOSTON,  1906 
PUBLISHED  BY  THE  HOME  MARKET  CLUB 


INDEX. 


.       10 

21,    31 

•       30 

.      22 


i 


Elaine,  James  G 35 

Canada  against  reciprocity 30 

Chamberlain  policy 29 

Continued  protection  why  necessary 12,  30  - 

Consumers  benefited  by  protection 26  • 

Cost  of  living 19 

Dingley  duties  not  made  high  to  be  reduced  by  reciprocity  .     30 

Duties,  specific,  ad  valorem  and  compound    . 

Duties,  why  high  sometimes  necessary  .... 

Duties,  100  per  cent  harmless 

Duties,  why  early  were  low      .         .         . 

-Free  Trade  makes  abnormal  prices 21 

Frye,  Wm.  P.^       . 43 

Imports,  our  large  competing 20,  64 

Industries,  interdependence  of 18,  19 

Infant  Industries 6 

Labor  Abroad 13,  14,  15,  42,  75 

Materials,  free  raw  ., 19 

McCleary,  James  T 76 

Ocean  freights  affecting  protection 22 

Paradise,  working-people's 20,  64 

Poem,  a  Tariff  Reformer's  Waterloo 69 

Prices,  how  reduced  by  protection 7,  32 

Prices,  why  lower  abroad 23,  31,  32 

Protection  and  revenue  only 10 

Protection  natural 5 

Protection  not  a  temporary  expedient 24 

Reciprocity  defined 25 

Reciprocity  like  special  R.  R.  rates 28 

Reciprocity  systems  in  Europe 75 

Reciprocity  with  Brazil 26 

Reciprocity  with  Canada 25 

Reciprocity  with  Germany 26,  27 

Revenue  only  and  Protection 10 

Sales  abroad 23,  31,  32 

Savings  deposits 19,  20 

Schwab's  $12  rail  statement  explained 31 

Steel  rails,  British  and  American  prices 31 

Steel  rails,  why  lower  in  Canada 32 

Sugar,  product  and  prices 27 

-Tariffs  defined 9 

Tariff  revision,  sectional  demand 32 

Tariff,  Single  or  Dual  —  which 76 

Trusts  and  the  tariff -*3>  7° 

Wages  in  stores  and  factories i?»  18 

Wages,  increases  of 19 

Williams  College,  false  teaching  of !* 

Working-people's  paradise 20,  64 


INTRODUCTION. 


Beginning  in  April,  1906,  the  Bright  and  Strong  Papers  were  issued  in  a 
series  of  seven  numbers  and  printed  in  nine  languages  —  English,  French,  Ger- 
man, Italian,  Portuguese,  Polish,  Swedish,  Hebrew  and  Armenian  —  and  mailed 
to  addresses  chiefly  of  new  citizens  in  Massachusetts.; 

Although,  as  the  almanac-makers  say,  they  were  "calculated  for  the  lati- 
tude" of  Massachusetts,  they  were  soon  found  to  be  of  equal  interest  in  other 
states,  because  they  deal  wholly  with  a  national  question,  and  the  only  local 
bearing  is  by  way  of  illustration. 

In  the  course  of  the  months  in  which  they  were  read  as  separate  papers  a 
very  interesting  and  promising  discovery  was, made,  and  that  was  that  the  citi- 
zens of  foreign  birth  had  been  so  rapidly  learning  the  language  of  their  new 
country  that  the  papers  in  English  which  accompanied  the  leaflets  were  read 
and  studied,  though  sometimes  with  the  aid  of  wife  or  child  who  had  been  edu- 
cated in  our  schools.  This  discovery  made  it  seem  expedient,  when  the  demand 
arose  for  a  consolidation  of  the  papers,  to  print  them  in  English  only,  and  here 
they  are,  reproduced  from  the  original  plates. 

The  papers  make  no  pretensions  to  literary  merit  or  the  dignity  of  a  book. 
The  aim  was  to  be  simple,  agreeable,  instructive,  and  frankly  to  meet  every 
question  and  objection.  It  is  this  feature  which  makes  the  papers  so  valuable 
to  young  men  and  other  new  voters.  They  feel  that  they  have  before  them 
both  sides  of  the  question,  candidly  treated. 

Abraham  Lincoln  said,  "  the  tariff  question  will  be  with  us  so  long  as  the 
government  stands."  The  reason  for  this  is  that  the  Constitution  provides  that 
all  revenue  bills  shall  originate  in  the  House  of  Representatives  and  that  a  new 
House  shall  be  elected  every  two  years.  This  makes  it  and  will  keep  it  a  politi- 
cal as  well  as  an  economic  question.  Every  voter,  therefore,  should  understand 
it  and  he  should  begin  by  realizing  that  it  is  an  American  question  and  not  a 
theory  to  be  squared  with  British  or  French  text  books.  The  late  Professor 
Bowen  of  Harvard  was  right  in  saying  that  every  important  country  must  have 
a  political  economy  of  its  own.  The  American  system  is  now  the  policy  of 
every  nation  except  Great  Britain  and  at  the  recent  general  election  in  that 
country,  something  like  it  was  favored  by  45  per  cent  of  the  voters. 

The  subject  is  too  great  to  be  covered  briefly,  but  the  short  readings  here 
presented  give  the  fundamental  distinctions  and  supply  the  key  by  which  all  its 
phases  can  be  opened  and  understood. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


MR.  BRIGHT  AND  MR.  STRONG. 


AND  HOW  THEY  MADE  A  JOURNEY  SHORT  BY  TALKING  ABOUT 
AN  IMPORTANT  PUBLIC  QUESTION. 


>N  a  train  between  Boston  and  Pittsfield,  on  the  2gth  day  of 
November,  1905,  two  men  got  into  an  earnest  conversation 
which  soon  attracted  the  attention  of  others.  It  began  by  one  re- 
marking to  the  other : 

"  The  train  is  very  full.  I  suppose  most  of  us  are  on  the  way  to 
Thanksgiving." 

"Yes,"  replied  the  younger,  "people  think  they  are  prosperous." 

"  Well,  are  they  not  prosperous  ?  "  asked  the  other  man,  who  looked 
like  one  of  those  highly  intelligent  mechanics  whom  you  see  all  over 
Massachusetts,  who  work  and  think  during  the  day  and  read  or  de- 
bate during  the  evening,  and  are  often  better  informed  on  some  sub' 
jects  than  even  members  of  Congress.  "  Isn't  the  prosperity  real 
and  isn't  it  general  throughout  the  country  ? " 

"  It  seems  so,"  replied  the  younger,  whom  we  will  call  Mr.  Bright, 
"  but  it  is  more  or  less  a  hot-house  growth  of  Protectionism  and 
therefore  artificial." 

"  O-ho  !  "  exclaimed  the  other,  who  gave  his  name  as  Mr.  Strong, 
"  so  you  think  Protection  is  unnatural,  do  you  ?  What  is  the  first 
thing  that  any  living  being  does  ?  Isn't  it  to  seek  food  and  shelter ; 
isn't  it  to  defend  itself  against  the  dangers  that  beset  it  on  every  hand  ? 
The  means  of  protection  may  be  artificial,  like  houses  and  clothing, 
and  tariffs,  and  armies  and  navies,  but  the  desire  and  need  for  pro- 
tection is  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  They  may  be  all  right  for  young  things — infant 
industries  —  but  what  did  I  take  Athletics  in  college  for  if  it  wasn't 
to  become  self-poised,  independent  and  able  to  defend  myself? 
Now  here  is  a  country  with  the  greatest  natural  resources  in  the 
world,  growing  crops  worth  six  billions  this  year,  with  more  than 
200,000  miles  of  railroad,  and  with  industries  which  are  giants  — 

5 


isn't  it  almost  humiliating  to  think  that  such  a  country  has  to  raise 
a  Chinese  wall  against  the  weaker  nations  of  the  world  ? " 

By  this  time  people  began  leaving  their  seats  in  the  car  and 
gathering  around  the  talkers  and  showing  the  keenest  interest  in 
what  was  said. 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "  No,  not  at  all;  on  the  contrary,  I  am  proud  of  a 
country  which  shows  such  achievements  and  whose  people  have 
known  enough  to  adopt  and  preserve  a  policy  that  gives  every  man 
an  incentive  to  do  his  level  best.  If  our  infant  industries  have 
grown  to  giants,  so  have  those  of  other  countries.  My  right  arm 
has  wielded  a  hammer  until  it  is  as  good  as  any  other  man's,  but  it 
can  produce  only  about  so  much  in  a  day.  Across  the  water  there 
are  other  men  who  can  turn  off  just  about  as  much  as  I  can,  and 
their  pay  is  only  about  one  half  as  much  as  mine  —  sometimes  more 
than  that,  but  often  less.  Now  two  of  those  men  can  put  out  more 
than  I  can.  This  enables  their  employer  to  undersell  my  employer 
unless  their's  is  required  to  pay  for  the  privilege  of  selling  in  our 
market.  He  is  required  to,  and  that  is  my  protection.  Without  it, 
I  wouldn't  always  have  work ;  my  wages  wouldn't  be  much  above  the 
European  level,  and  in  some  lines  they  would  have  to  come  down  to 
the  Japanese  level ;  I  couldn't  live  in  a  home  of  my  own  —  in  a  house 
with  a  cellar,  and  wooden  floors,  and  running  water,  painted  and 
blinded,  with  a  little  lawn  and  a  little  garden,  with  books  and  musi- 
cal instruments ;  and  without  that  protection  I  couldn't  spare  my 
wife  from  the  mill  to  keep  that  house  and  to  keep  the  children  neatly 
clothed  for  school  and  church.  O,  I  have  read  all  about  conditions 
in  other  countries  and  I  don't  want  them  introduced  here.  We 
wouldn't  have  had  half  as  many  miles  of  railroad,  nor  raised  half  of 
these  great  crops,  nor  seen  half  of  these  great  factories,  if  we  hadn't 
kept  our  natural  opportunity  for  our  own  people." 

Mr.  Strong  spoke  like  a  man  in  earnest,  but  he  was  not  excited. 
He  had  the  calm  confidence  of  one  who  knows  he  is  right.  But  Mr. 
Bright  was  also  a  man  of  intellectual  resource,  and  he  returned  to  the 
attack  with  what  he  considered  a  knock-down  argument. 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  Are  these  great  crops  yours  ?  Do  you  get  them 
cheaply  ?  Aren't  you  paying  a  dollar  a  bushel  for  potatoes  and  47 
cents  a  dozen  for  eggs  ?  Isn't  the  very  coat  on  your  back  tariff- 
taxed  for  the  enrichment  of  the  woolen  trust  and  the  great  range 
shepherds  of  Montana  and  Wyoming  and  New  Mexico  ?  And  have 

6 


you  ever  thought  that  your  wages  are  not  real  wages,  that  is,  meas- 
ured by  what  they  will  buy  ?  " 

"  I  have  thought  all  about  it,"  said  Mr.  Strong,  "  and  I  have  ex- 
amined no  end  of  authorities,  and  if  I  had  time  I  could  prove  to  you 
that  after  I  have  paid  Protection  prices  for  all  that  my  family  and  I 
need,  I  have  more  money  left  for  the  savings  bank  than  any  work- 
man of  my  class  in  any  other  country.  And  what  is  true  of  me  is 
equally  true  of  others.  Whether  we  have  protection  or  free  trade,  I 
guess  things  get  pretty  well  equalized  between  the  classes.  I  don't 
believe  that  either  the  manufacturers  or  the  farmers  get  more  than 
their  share  —  that  is,  as  a  general  thing :  there  are  always  some  ex- 
ceptions. But  speaking  about  prices,  don't  you  know  that  they  are 
governed  by  the  rule  of  supply  and  demand  ? " 

"  Yes,"  said  Mr.  Bright,  "  that  is  good  free-trade  doctrine,  but 
protection  makes  prices  artificial." 

"Now,  hold  on  a  minute,"  said  Mr.  Strong.  "Protection  stimu- 
lates production,  increases  the  world's  supply,  and  that  tends  to  re- 
duce prices.  You  may  look  at  any  of  the  authentic  tables  and  you 
will  find  that  goods  of  all  kinds  are  cheaper  than  they  were  twenty- 
five  and  fifty  years  age>.  Of  course,  if  you  want  panic  prices,  when 
the  bottom  drops  out  of  everything,  you  can  get  them  by  introducing 
free  trade,  or  greatly  cutting  down  duties,  for  that  always  paralyzes 
industry.  But  when  that  happens,  earnings  fall  off  and  we  haven't 
much  to  buy  with.  And  as  for  the  coat  on  my  back,  I  never  owned 
so  good  a  one  before  for  so  little  money." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "I  heard  Mr.  William  Lloyd  Garrison  say  re- 
cently that  he  got  a  suit  made  in  London  for  less  than  half  the 
money  that  a  Boston  tailor  would  charge." 

"Very  likely,"  returned  Mr.  Strong.  "1  am  not  talking  about 
tailor-made  garments,  but  about  goods  manufactured  for  the  million. 
For  such,  this  country  beats  the  world,  not  only  in  quality  and  fit, 
but  also  in  low  prices.  Tailor-made  suits  are  exceptional,  but  the 
main  reason  for  that  is  that  cutters,  journeymen,  stitchers  and  seam- 
stresses are  all  paid  in  this  country  twice  as  much  as  they  are  in 
England." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  I  am  not  disposed  to  dispute  that,  and  it  is  what 
makes  it  hard  for  refined  people  of  moderate  means  to  live  here. 
The  manufacturers,  the  artisans  and  the  producers  of  food  have  got 
us  by  the  throat." 

7 


MR.  STRONG.  —  "  Do  you  really  think  the  classes  you  name  are  in 
a  great  conspiracy  to  rob  their  fellow-countrymen  ?  Most  of  our 
Congressmen  are  what  you  call '  refined  people  ' ;  why  did  they  make 
a  law  to  rob  themselves  ?  When  you  reflect  a  moment  you  will  see 
the  absurdity  of  your  remark.  Most  people  who  are  not  producing 
are  doing  something  else  —  engaged  in  trade,  or  banking,  or  trans- 
portation, or  teaching,  or  practising  the  professions.  Are  not  their 
incomes  even  higher,  as  a  rule,  than  those  of  producers  ?  The  only 
reason  why  producers  and  not  others  are  protected  by  the  tariff  is 
because  they  alone  are  exposed  to  foreign  competition." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  Mr.  Edward  Atkinson  says,  and  he  proves  it  by 
census  figures,  that  only  a  very  small  percentage  of  the  people  are 
engaged  in  pursuits  that  would  even  be  in  danger  of  suffering  from 
foreign  competition.  I  think  he  puts  it  at  9  per  cent.  So  it  looks 
to  me  as  though  all  the  rest  are  taxed  for  their  benefit." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "  Mr.  Atkinson  was  mistaken,  for  he  did  not  in- 
clude farmers  in  the  list  of  the  protected ;  he  confined  the  list  to 
mill  owners  and  their  operatives.  And  he  missed  the  point  entirely, 
for  when  protection  is  applied  to  the  exposed  places,  it  is  applied  to 
all.  It  fixes  the  scale  of  wages  and  living  for  the  whole  country. 
When  Mr.  Atkinson  advanced  this  small  percentage  theory  in  a 
speech  before  the  Twentieth  Century  Club,  a  protection  speaker 
answered  him  by  saying,  '  The  tall  buildings  in  Boston  are  but  a 
small  percentage  of  the  whole,  but  they  would  be  good  targets.  If 
a  foreign  fleet  should  bombard  them,  how  much  business  do  you 
suppose  would  be  done  in  the  rest  of  the  city  ? ' ' 

At  this,  one  of  the  bystanders  said  :  "  I  don't  want  to  *  butt  in,' 
but  I  haven't  looked  into  the  question  at  all,  and  I  wish  one  of  you 
would  explain  to  me  what  a  tariff  is  and  how  it  is  applied."  Both 
said  they  gladly  would,  but  they  were  nearing  Pittsfield  and  there 
wasn't  time.  By  a  little  further  talk,  however,  they  learned  that  all 
were  going  to  return  the  same  day,  and  so  they  arranged  to  take  the 
same  train,  and  several  others  said  they  also  would  take  it,  so  as  to 
hear  the  discussion.  They  didn't  notice  that  a  young  man  who  sat 
behind  them  had  made  notes  of  what  they  said,  but  he  concluded  to 
return  with  them,  and  that  is  how  it  happens  that  the  discussion 
gets  into  print.  The  next  installment  will  follow  soon. 


MR.  BRIGHT  AND  MR.  STRONG. 


THE  RETURN  JOURNEY  — AN  INTERESTED    GROUP  OF  PASSEN- 
GERS LEARNS  A  PRIMARY  LESSON  ABOUT  TARIFFS 
AND  HOW  THEY  ARE  APPLIED. 


According  to  appointment,  Mr.  Bright  and  Mr.  Strong  and  the 
other  Thanksgiving  visitors  met  at  the  station  in  Pittsfield  and  took 
the  Berkshire  Express  train  for  Boston. 

"Let  us  see,"  said  Mr.  Bright,  "for  the  information  of  our  young 
friend  here  we  were  to  take  up  in  this  conversation  the  question  of 
what  a  tariff  is  and  how  it  is  applied.  If  agreeable  I  will  proceed  to 
answer  and  then,  possibly,  Mr.  Strong  will  explain  the  difference  be- 
tween a  revenue  tariff  and  a  protective  tariff,  and  we  will  watch 
each  other  to  see  that  our  definitions  are  correct." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "  All  right,  go  ahead,  and  be  sure  that  I  don't  get 
the  joke  on  you  that  President  McKinley  got  on  W.  B.  Plunkett. 
I  heard  it  at  Adams  yesterday  and  I  may  as  well  tell  it  now,  for 
I  expect  your  description  will  be  so  good  that  I  shall  have  no  chance 
to  tell  it  after  you  get  through." 

After  all  had  craned  their  necks  to  see  the  beautiful  village  of 
Dalton,  which  they  were  passing,  they  came  back  to  a  listening  atti- 
tude. 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "  The  story  isn't  a  tariff  story,  though  the  inci- 
dent occurred  between  two  great  tariff  men.  When  the  President 
and  members  of  the  Cabinet  were  Mr.  Plunkett's  guests,  one  day 
they  had  roast  turkey  for  dinner.  Just  as  Mr.  Plunkett  had  lopped 
off  one  wing  he  was  called  to  the  telephone  and  when  he  came  back 
he  saw  that  the  President  had  slipped  into  his  place  and  finished  the 
carving.  *  You  made  a  good  job  of  that,  Mr.  President,'  said  he. 
'Yes,'  replied  McKinley,  'it  is  not  bad,  considering  how  it  was 
botched  in  the  beginning.'  "  (  Laughter) 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  That  is  a  good  story  and  I  am  glad  you  told  it 
before  I  make  a  botch  of  telling  what  the  tariff  is.  All  civilized 
countries  need  revenue  and  they  raise  a  part  of  it  by  placing  taxes 
called  duties  or  customs  on  goods  brought  into  the  country  from 
outside.  The  law  for  raising  this  revenue  is  called  a  tariff.  At  each 
important  port  and  at  places  where  railroads  cross  from  one  coun- 

9 


try  to  another,  there  are  customs  houses,  officered  by  a  collector,  an 
appraiser,  and  such  assistants  as  they  need  —  in  fact  usually  by  more 
than  they  need —  and  these  officials  are  required  to  be  familiar  with 
the  law,  so  as  to  know  what  duties  to  collect.  The  merchant  wno 
brings  the  goods  into  the  country  is  called  an  importer,  and  one  who 
sends  goods  out  of  the  country  is  called  an  exporter." 

MR.  YOUNG —  (  for  this  was  learned  to  be  the  name  of  the  man 
who  had  asked  to  have  the  tariffs  denned  )  —  "Is  it  possible  that 
a  tariff  can  name  all  the  articles  dealt  in  between  countries  and  fix 
a  duty  upon  each  ? " 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  No,  but  the  principal  articles  are  named  and  are 
grouped  in  lists  called  schedules,  and  thus  we  have  the  agricultural 
schedule,  the  chemical  schedule,  the  iron  and  steel  schedule,  and  so 
on,  and  then  the  tariff  provides  that  duties  shall  be  placed  on  ar- 
ticles not  mentioned  as  near  in  amount  as  possible  to  those  on  similar 
goods  that  are  mentioned.  Necessarily  something  has  to  be  left  to 
the  judgment  and  honesty  of  customs  officials." 

MR.  YOUNG.  —  "I  understand  that,  now  I  wish  you  would  explain 
why  some  duties  are  called  specific  and  some  ad  valorem." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  With  pleasure.  A  specific  duty  is  a  certain  sum 
per  yard,  or  per  pound,  regardless  of  the  value  of  the  goods.  That 
is  always  an  easy  duty  to  collect  and  does  not  permit  of  frauds.  Near- 
ly all  the  duties  in  European  tariffs  are  specific.  Ad  valorem  means 
according  to  the  value.  If  the  duty  is  20  per  centum,  that  means 
one  fifth  of  the  value  of  the  goods,  because  twenty  is  one  fifth  of  one 
hundred.  Therefore,  if  the  appraiser  decides  that  the  goods  are 
worth  $100,  the  collector  will  exact  $20  before  he  will  permit  the 
goods  to  enter  the  country." 

Here  another  gentleman,  who  said  his  name  was  Gray,  remarked 
that  he  wished  Mr.  Bright  would  also  explain  compound  duties. 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  Again  with  pleasure.  A  compound  duty  is  when 
both  specific  and  ad  valorem  duties  are  applied  to  the  same  article. 
For  example,  50  cents  a  yard  (  specific  )  and  30  per  cent,  ad  valor- 
em in  addition.  This  is  a  device  of  Protectionism  and  it  looks  to 
me  like  giving  the  screw  another  turn." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "  Now  you  have  stopped  teaching  and  gone  to 
preaching." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "I  did  it  on  purpose  to  stir  you  up,  for  I  had  cov- 
ered the  ground  assigned  to  me  and  now  it  is  your  turn  to  show  the 
difference  between  a  tariff  for  protection  and  a  tariff  for  revenue 
only." 

MR.  STRONG. —  "Thanks,  and  I  will  try  to  be  as  plain  and  accurate 
and  polite  as  you  have  been.  A  good  many  people  think  that  high 

10 


duties  mean  protection  and  that  low  duties  are  for  revenue  qnly, 
but  this  is  not  the  chief  difference.  The  main  distinction  between 
the  free  trade  tariff  of  Great  Britain  and  the  protective  tariff  of  the 
United  States  is  in  the  articles  that  are  taxed.  The  British  have 
customs  houses  the  same  as  we  have  and  they  collect  substantially 
as  much  revenue  on  imports  according  to  their  population  as  we 
collect,  but  their  duties  do  not  protect  any  home  industry,  while 
ours  are  designed  to  protect  all  home  industries.  " 

MR.  YOUNG. — "This  is  puzzling.  I  can't  understand  it  unless 
you  name  the  goods." 

MR.  STRONG. —  "That  is  just  what  I  was  coming  to.  Great  Brit- 
ain puts  duties  mainly  on  such  goods  as  are  not  produced  in  the 
country  and  which  the  people  are  obliged  to  import  if  they  would 
have  them.  Our  policy  is  exactly  the  reverse.  When  we  cannot 
produce  goods  of  a  particular  kind  in  commercial  quantities,  we  ad- 
mit them  free  of  duty,  so  that  our  people  may  get  them  as  cheaply 
as  possible.  Neither  Great  Britain  nor  the  United  States  grows  tea 
and  coffee,  but  large  quantities  of  both  are  consumed.  Great  Brit- 
ain puts  heavy  duties  upon  them,  and  thus  taxes  the  breakfast 
tables  of  the  poor  just  as  much  as  of  the  rich." 

MR.  GRAY. — "Great  Britain  also  puts  a  duty  on  spirits,  and  yet 
is  a  large  producer  of  spirits.  Isn't  such  a  duty  protective  to  the 
British  distillers?" 

MR.  STRONG. —  "It  would  be,  but  to  prevent  that  effect,  an  excise 
or  internal  revenue  tax  is  placed  upon  the  domestic  product,  large 
enough  to  offset  the  duty  on  the  import,  and  thus  more  revenue  is 
raised  and,  as  Mr.  Bright  said  about  compound  duties,  that  looks 
like  giving  the  screw  another  turn."  (Laughter) 

MR.  YOUNG. —  "Do  those  examples  illustrate  the  whole  difference 
as  to  other  articles?" 

MR.  STRONG. —  "They  do.  Both  Britain  and  America  are  large 
manufacturers  of  cotton  and  woolen  cloths,  iron  and  steel  goods, 
and  hundreds  of  other  articles  very  much  alike.  Britain  puts  no 
duty  on  them  and  thus  becomes  the  dumping  ground  for  the  sur- 
pluses of  other  countries.  We  put  a  duty  on  them  so  as  to  raise  rev- 
enue and  protect  home  production.  That  duty  compels  the  foreign 
manufacturer  to  pay  into  the  United  States  Treasury  what  he  has 
saved  by  not  paying  his  work  people  so  much  as  we  pay  ours,  be- 
fore he  can  be  permitted  to  enter  our  market  and  sell  goods  which 
we  can  make  for  ourselves.  I  think  it  is  right. " 

MR.  GRAY. —  "And  we  protect  agriculture  and  mining  in  the  same 
way." 

MR.  STRONG. —  "Certainly,  and  thus,  as  McKinley  said,  'We  have 

ii 


become  the  first  nation  in  agriculture,  the  first  nation  in  mining  and 
the  first  nation  in  manufacturing.'" 

MR.  BRIGHT. —  "And  having  become  such,  have  we  not  accom- 
plished the  object  of  protection,  and  can  we  not  now  stand  up  with- 
out a  prop?" 

MR.  STRONG. —  "  Some  of  us  can  and  some  cannot.  I  said  to  you 
on  the  way  over  that  while  I  can  produce  as  much  as  one  man  in 
some  other  country,  I  cannot  produce  so  much  as  two,  whose  joint 
wages  oftentimes  do  not  equal  mine.  Thus,  without  a  duty  their 
product  could  come  here  and  undersell  mine  and  drive  me  out  of 
employment.  To  my  mind  this  makes  protection  just  as  neces- 
sary as  it  ever  was. " 

MR.  BRIGHT. —  "In  a  given  case  that  may  be  so,  but  as  a  whole 
we  beat  the  world." 

MR.  STRONG. —  "Yes,  with  protection.  But  if  we  had  not  enjoyed 
protection  we  would  not  have  beaten  the  world.  In  your  private 
business  would  you  throw  away  an  implement  which  has  done  you 
good  service  and  which  is  now  as  good  as  it  ever  was?" 

MR.  BRIGHT. —  "Perhaps  not,  but  I  would  keep  up  with  improve- 
ments. Didn't  Gen.  Garfield  once  say  that  he  favored  the  protec- 
tion which  leads  to  free  trade?" 

MR.  STRONG. —  "Possibly  he  did;  he  was  educated  at  Williams 
College,  which  has  been  noted  for  free  trade  professors ;  but  an  Al- 
lopath might  as  well  say  that  he  favors  the  practice  which  leads  to 
Homeopathy.  The  two  systems  don't  mix.  Protection  has  pre- 
vented this  country  from  being  deluged  with  foreign  goods,  and  thus 
we  have  produced  for  ourselves.  It  has  cured  us  whenever  tariff 
reform  has  made  us  sick.  Here  is  a  speech  by  the  late  James  G. 
Blaine,  which  gives  the  tariff  history  of  this  country,  and  it  proves 
what  I  tell  you." 

MR.  BRIGHT. — "I  will  read  it  with  pleasure.  But  I  think  you  are 
mistaken  about  labor  being  cheaper  abroad  than  here,  considering 
how  much  more  it  accomplishes  here." 

MR.  STRONG. —  "I  would  prove  what  I  say  if  we  had  time.  But 
here  we  are,  near  Boston.  Can't  we  meet  again?" 

At  this  all  clapped  their  hands,  and  it  was  soon  arranged  to  meet 
at  the  Wells  Memorial  one  week  from  that  night,  and  to  consider 
the  labor  question. 

NOTE.  —  For  Mr.  Elaine's  short  tariff  history,  see  Appendix  A. 

12 


MR.  BRIGHT  AND  MR.  STRONG. 


HOW    THE    TARIFF    PROTECTS    LABOR  —  PRESENT    WAGES    IN 

ITALY  AND  JAPAN  — THE  CASE  OF  CLERKS  AND 

SALESMEN. 


At  the  Wells  Memorial  Institute,  985  Washington  Street,  Boston, 
which  is  a  place  of  assembly  for  various  working  people's  societies, 
Mr.  Bright  and  Mr.  Strong  and  an  augmented  number  of  men  who 
wished  to  learn  more  about  the  tariff,  found  a  suitable  room  on  the 
appointed  evening  and  their  conversation  proceeded  as  follows: 

MR.  STRONG. —  "When  we  separated  last  week  I  was  going  to 
prove  to  you  that  the  labor  cost  of  production  is  not  lower  here  than 
it  is  in  other  countries  and  on  the  contrary  is  much  higher.  Here 
is  a  pamphlet  entitled  Labor  Abroad,  which  contains  a  great  deal 
of  authentic  information  on  the  subject,  and,  if  each  of  you  will  read 
it,  he  must  become  convinced  that  we  cannot  safely  risk  our  jobs  by 
letting  down  the  tariff  bars." 

MR.  BRIGHT. —  "Very  likely  these  statements  about  wages  are 
substantially  correct,  but  we  have  three  great  advantages  in  pro- 
duction :  ( i )  more  fuel  and  raw  materials  brought  cheaply  to  our 
mills,  (2)  superior  organization  in  working  forces  and  machinery 
without  extra  handling,  and  (3)  greater  alertness,  life,  vigor,  intelli- 
gence and  ambition  on  the  part  of  operatives.  These  combined,  in 
my  opinion,  make  the  cost  of  production  lower  here  than  in  the  coun- 
tries which  compete  with  us." 

MR.  STRONG. — "  As  for  fuel  and  raw  material,  what  you  say  may 
be  true  of  our  Southern  States  and  of  some  of  our  Western  States, 
but  it  is  not  true  of  New  England.  What  you  say  of  organization  is 
true  of  New  England,  although  foreign  establishments  are  rapidly 
copying  our  methods  and  our  new  machinery,  and  what  you  say  of 
our  labor  is  to  some  extent  true,  but  the  English  workmen  who  con- 
stituted what  was  called  '  the  Moseley  Commission '  and  who  came 
over  herein  1903  to  study  our  methods,  reported  that  skilled  British 
labor  is  quite  as  productive  as  any  that  they  saw  here.  I  grant  that 
in  nervous  energy  and  ambition  our  workers  are  ahead  of  most 
others,  but  this  is  because  they  live  better,  drink  less,  and  see  a 
chance  to  improve  their  condition.  The  higher  wages,  due  in  part  to 

NOTE.  —  The  "  Labor  Abroad  "  pamphlet  is  in  Appendix  B. 

13 


protection,  largely  account  for  this  superiority.  But  if  the  tariff  is 
so  reduced  that  more  foreign  goods  come  in,  our  employers  cannot 
pay  these  wages,  and  then,  with  employment  diminished  and  hope 
gone,  we  shall  soon  sink  to  foreign  standards.  Do  any  of  us  want  to 
take  the  risk  ?  " 

MR.  BRIGHT. — "  I  see  that  some  of  the  statements  in  this  'Labor 
Abroad'  pamphlet  were  gathered  several  years  ago.  There  has 
been  a  wonderful  improvement  in  foreign  countries  since  then." 

MR.  STRONG. —  "  Recent  consular  reports  and  other  trustworthy 
data  show  very  little  gain  in  wages,  but  marked  improvement  in 
methods.  There  is  quite  a  boom  in  manufacturing  in  Italy,  but  a 
report  to  our  State  Department  by  U.  S.  Consul  Dunning,  written 
at  Milan,  and  speaking  of  wages  in  Lombardy,  says  that,  in  the  dan- 
gerous work  of  making  matches, 

'  An  average  wage  of  eleven  cents  a  day  is  the  pay  of  girls  under 
fifteen,  in  factories  employing  twenty  operatives  or  less ;  in  large 
factories  of  from  one  hundred  to  five  hundred  hands  of  whom  24 
per  cent  are  girls  under  fifteen,  the  average  girl's  wage  is  only  twelve 
cents  a  day.  The  highest  earnings  of  mature  factory-women  are 
paid,  it  seems,  in  the  cotton  mills,  where  work  is  supplied  265 
days  of  the  year,  and  the  pay  is  but  twenty-nine  to  thirty-nine 
cents  a  day.  Women  tobacco  workers  in  Lombardy  work  about 
three  hundred  days  a  year,  at  an  average  wage  of  not  much  over 
thirty-five  cents  a  day;  12.2  per  cent  of  the  women  workers  as  a 
whole  earn  fifteen  cents  a  day ;  30.4  per  cent  from  fifteen  to  twenty 
cents ;  43.7  per  cent  earn  from  twenty  to  thirty  cents  and  10.5  earn 
from  thirty  to  forty  cents  daily.  Only  3.2  percentage  of  the  women 
earn  more  than  forty  cents  a  day.' 

These  are  pitiful  wages.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  the  willing  work- 
ers of  Italy  are  coming  over  here  in  throngs  ? " 

MR.  BRIGHT.—  "  No,  it  isn't  any  wonder.  But  where  does  your 
boasted  protection  come  in  ?  You  keep  out  the  Italian  goods  by 
duties  ranging  from  30  to  85  per  cent,  and  try  to  make  our  working 
people  believe  that  thus  they  are  protected,  and  then  you  admit  the 
Italians  themselves  free,  to  get  away  your  jobs  after  they  arrive." 

MR.  STRONG. —  "After  coming  here  they  do  not  work  under  Ital- 
ian conditions,  but  under  American  conditions;  and  they  do  not  get 
away  any  job  that  any  man  wishes  to  hold  if  he  is  competent  to  hold 
it.  Besides,  when  they  work  here  they  buy  what  others  produce 
here.  President  Lincoln  once  wisely  said  :  '  When  you  import,  you 
get  the  goods,  but  your  money  goes  abroad  to  pay  for  them ;  when 
you  produce  them,  you  have  both  the  goods  and  the  money. '  More- 
over, the  coming  of  good  healthy  immigrants  to  a  vast  new  country 
that  is  full  of  opportunities  is  a  great  benefit.  Andrew  Carnegie, 
who  is  a  philosopher  as  well  as  a  philanthropist,  estimates  that, 


OF  THE 

f   UNIVERSITY  } 


even  if  they  bring  no  money  they  are   worth  to  the  country  $1500 
each.     So  we  don't  need  to  protect  against  them  but  against  the 
hard  conditions  that  they  leave  behind." 

MR.  YOUNG.  —  "  I  think  I  am  becoming  a  protectionist.     Besides 
the  low  wages  in  Italy,  there  are  those  in  Japan.     I  have  just  been 
reading  an  article   in  the  Boston  Commercial  Bulletin,  of  which 
Governor  Guild  is  the  editor.     He  thinks  the  real  *  yellow  peril  '  is 
Japanese  competition  with  our  manufactures,  and  to  prove  it  he 
gives  this  table  of  Japanese  daily  wages  : 

Spinning  operatives,  men,    .  $  .16^         Day  laborers,      ....    $  .26 

Spinning  operatives,  women,      .10  Brick  makers,     .....  34^ 

Weaving  operatives,  men,     .     .18  Carriage  builders,  .     .     .        .30 

Weaving  operatives,  women,      .11  Paper  hangers,  .....  43 

Carpenters,     .......  40  Door  makers,      .....  40^ 

Sawyers,     ........  39^         Wooden  clogmakers,  .     .       .23 

Matmakers,     .......  43!         Lacquerers,     ......  35$ 

The  editor  does  not  doubt  but  that  American  labor  is  better  than 
that  of  Japan,  but  as  it  costs  more  than  four  times  as  much,  after 
the  little  soldiers  who  drove  Russia  out  of  Manchuria  have  got  at 
work  in  factories,  they  can  send  enough  cotton  goods  and  shoes 
here  to  close  every  factory  in  Massachusetts  unless  we  maintain 
duties  high  enough  to  keep  them  out."  ' 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  I  haven't  any  fears  of  Japan  or  any  other  country. 
There  is  country  enough  in  the  Orient  to  engage  all  their  attention." 
MR.  STRONG.  —  "  For  the  present,  yes  ;  but  their  progress  in  manu- 
factures in  the  last  fifteen  years  has  equaled  their  progress  in  mili- 
tary science  and  achievement.  Doubtless  it  is  true  that  the  first 
overflow  of  their  manufactures  will  be  into  other  oriental  countries, 
mainly  into  Korea  and  China;  but  they  will  get  the  trade  which  we 
now  have  there,  and  when  our  Southern  mills  and  our  Maine  and 
New  Hampshire  mills  lose  their  China  trade,  they  will  have  just 
that  much  more  product  to  unload  upon  the  markets  of  New  York 
and  Boston  and  Chicago,  and  the  result  will  be  sharper  competition 
with  our  New  England  mills.  There  is  no  use  in  being  blind  to 
these  great  new  facts  in  the  world.  We  have  got  to  compete  with 
that  tremendous  volume  of  cheap  and  efficient  labor  somewhere, 
and  as  the  only  market  which  we  can  surely  control  is  our  own, 
what  folly  it  would  be  to  throw  away  the  only  means  by  which  we 
can  control  it." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  I  wish  to  introduce  my  friend  Mr.  Thomas,  who 
has  given  much  study  to  these  questions,  and  whose  views  I  think 
you  will  all  be  glad  to  hear".  Mr.  Thomas  was  received  with  ap- 
plause. He  wore  glasses  and  looked  like  a  professor,  but  he  said  he 
was  a  salesman. 

'5 


MR.  THOMAS. —  "  I  have  listened  to  this  discussion  with  great  in- 
terest, and  I  have  not  failed  to  notice  that  you  all  discuss  the  ques- 
tion from  the  standpoint  of  labor  employed  in  mills.  I  agree  with 
the  remark  made  by  Mr.  Bright  on  your  way  over  to  Berkshire,  that 
you  artisans  and  operatives,  with  your  employers,  have  got  the  rest 
of  us  by  the  throat,  and  are  bound  to  keep  us  from  enjoying  the 
products  of  foreign  cheap  labor.  Here  we  salespeople  are,  a  great 
army,  numbering  a  million  or  more,  working  on  fixed  incomes,  com- 
pelled to  pay  living  expenses  which  have  been  greatly  increased  by 
your  exclusion  policy,  and  by  the  further  exactions  of  the  trades 
unions,  and  somehow  the  more  the  country  prospers  the  poorer 
we  seem  to  get." 

Several  in  the  company  applauded  this  sharp  arraignment,  but  it 
was  not  allowed  to  go  unchallenged. 

MR.  GRAY. — "Isn't  it  easier  for  you  to  sell  goods  when  the  mills 
are  all  busy  and  labor  is  well  employed  ? " 

MR.  THOMAS. — "  Yes,  but  few  of  us  get  any  more  for  it,  and  you* 
high  tariff,  coupled  with  the  great  demand  for  everything,  has  raised 
prices  so  that  it  is  harder  for  us  to  live.  I  think  protection  is  a 
great  humbug  and  we  are  all  being  buncoed." 

MR.  GRAY. — "  Do  you  think  there  would  be  as  much  demand  for 
salesmen  if  labor  were  not  well  employed  and  trade  were  dull?" 

MR.  THOMAS. — "  I  think  if  we  had  free  trade  there  would  be  a 
greater  demand,  because  then  everybody  could  get  what  he  wants 
at  the  lowest  possible  price,  and  every  merchant  would  realize  that 
his  success  depends  upon  his  salesmen.  He  wouldn't  have  any 
cinch ;  he  must  just  hustle." 

MR.  GRAY. — "  I  have  no  doubt  you  are  a  smart  salesman,  but 
even  you  can't  sell  goods  unless  there  are  buyers,  and  if  people  are 
not  well  employed  they  cannot  be  great  buyers." 

MR.  STRONG. —  "It  all  comes  to  this,  as  the  illustrious  Thomas  B. 
Reed  said  in  the  last  article  he  ever  wrote,  the  ideal  condition  of 
society  is  when  everybody  is  employed.  We  cannot  all  be  em- 
ployed if  we  allow  foreigners  to  make  our  goods.  If  we  do  not  earn 
we  cannot  buy,  and  if  we  cannot  buy  there  is  poor  business  for  the 
merchant  and  the  salesman.  The  industries  of  a  country  depend  a 
great  deal  upon  each  other." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  "  I  should  like  to  go  further  into  this  matter  01 
wages  and  prices.  Let  us  meet  here  two  weeks  from  to-night  and 
let  each  bring  any  facts  which  he  may  have."  And  so  they  agreed 
and  adjourned. 


16 


MR.  BRIGHT  AND  MR.  STRONG. 


RELATIVE    WAGES    OF    SALESPEOPLE    AND    FACTORY  OPER- 
ATIVES—GREAT INCREASE  IN  WAGES  AND  IN  SAVINGS. 


Pursuant  to  adjournment  the  tariff  talkers  met,  several  of  them 
having  brought  new  friends,  and  the  first  thing  they  did  was  to 
adopt  a  rule  that  it  would  not  be  in  order  merely  to  denounce  a 
policy,  as  one  had  done  in  the  last  conversation,  but  to  give  facts 
or  reasons,  for  and  against,  so  that  the  truth  might  be  learned,  for 
nothing  but  the  truth  can  stand. 

MR.  THOMAS.  —  "I  accept  this  rule  and  will  supply  what  I  omitted 
before.  We  were  talking  about  salespeople  and  other  unprotected 
classes." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "I  do  not  agree  that  there  are  any  unprotected 
classes.  You  share  the  general  economic  condition  of  the  country. 
Your  salaries  or  commissions  or  both  are  higher  than  salespeople 
get  in  any  foreign  country,  generally  twice  as  high.  There  are,  to 
be  sure,  many  young  salesmen  who  accept  small  pay  while  learning 
the  business,  and  many  saleswomen  who  work  for  less  than  factory 
wages  or  the  wages  of  domestics,  only  because  they  think  the  work 
is  more  genteel,  or  affords  more  hope  of  promotion,  but  when  we 
had  the  last  Democratic  tariff,  from  1894  to  1897,  many  of  these 
people  were  thrown  out  of  employment,  and  a  charity  workshop  had 
to  be  opened  for  them  and  other  working  women  at  the  corner  of 
Bedford  and  Kingston  streets.  This  shows  that  unless  the  mills 
prosper  the  stores  cannot,  and  thus  salespeople  are  protected  through 
the  mills."  • 

MR.  THOMAS.  —  "But  the  point  I  was  trying  to  make  is  that  pro- 
tectionism and  trusts  have  made  the  rich  richer  and  created  a  more 
luxurious  style  of  living,  which  the  great  middle  class  feel  compelled 
to  follow  more  or  less  closely,  and  have  raised  the  prices  of  necessa- 
ries, and  made  a  good  many  things  necessary  which  were  not  nec- 
essary before,  and  our  incomes  have  not  been  correspondingly  in- 
creased." 

• 

MR.  GRAY.  —  "  Being  a  small  merchant  myself,  I  wish  to  answer 

17 


that.  It  is  true  that  there  is  always  more  extravagance  in  good  times 
than  in  bad,  but  we  people  of  moderate  means  are  not  obliged  to 
ape  the  rich.  It  is  true,  too,  that  a  great  demand  raises  prices, 
but  the  rise  in  necessaries  has  been  much  less  than  many  suppose. 
Dun's  index  number  shows  that  for  20  years  prior  to  1890  the 
wholesale  cost  of  a  year's  necessaries  for  each  person  averaged 
$13°-SS>  while  during  the  last  seven  years,  all  of  them  under  the 
Dingley  tariff,  the  average  has  been  only  $99. 69.  This,  to  be  sure, 
is  a  little  higher  than  under  the  Wilson  tariff,  (1894-1897),  but  that 
was  a  time  of  such  general  prostration  that  buyers  were  few  and 
prices  were  sacrificed.  Now  as  to  the  compensation  of  clerks  and 
salespeople,  it  is  higher  in  the  upper  grades  than  the  wages  of 
skilled  labor  in  factories.  I  have  seen  a  table  of  such  wages  in 
1904,  prepared  by  Chief  Pidgin  of  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics,  which  shows  that  in  stores  about  14  in  100  of  the 
employes  receive  $iobut  under  $12  a  week,  while  in  factories  fewer 
than  13  in  100  get  that  much.  Of  those  getting  $12  but  under  $15, 
the  proportions  are  20  in  100  in  stores  and  13  in  100  in  factories.  Of 
those  paid  $15  but  under  $20,  the  proportions  are  13  in  100  in  stores 
and  10  in  100  in  factories,  while  those  paid  $20  and  over  number  5 
in  100  in  stores  and  3  in  100  in  factories.  Thus  those  who  handle 
the  goods  are  paid  a  little  more  than  those  who  produce  the  goods, 
as  perhaps  they  should  be  on  account  of  the  need  of  keeping  up  a 
little  more  style.  Moreover,  most  of  them  have  had  their  wages 
increased  from  20  to  30  per  cent  in  the  last  six  or  seven  years." 
MR.  THOMAS.  — "Mine  have  not  been  increased." 
MR.  GRAY.  —  "I  am  sorry  for  that,  but  you  may  inquire  at  any 
of  the  leading  stores  in  Boston  and  you  will  find  my  statement 
borne  out." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "I  for  one  thank  Mr.  Gray  for  his  very  informing 
statement.  And  I  would  call  attention  to  the  obvious  lesson  of  it 
and  that  is  that  all  our  industries,  whether  protected  directly  or 
indirectly  by  the  tariff,  are  about  equally  protected,  because  they 
sustain  such  close  relations  to  each  other  that  you  cannot  hurt  one 
without  hurting  the  others.  Let  me  give  you  just  one  illustration 
of  this.  The  last  Democratic  tariff  put  wool  on  the  free  list  and 
heavily  reduced  the  duties  on  woolen  goods.  But  it  made  the  duties 
on  cotten  goods  fairly  protective.  This  was  because  the  South  had 
begun  to  manufacture  cottons  on  a  large  scale  and  the  South  was 
the  controlling  portion  of  the  Democratic  party.  The  woolen  in- 
dustry became  prostrated,  but  did  the  cotton  industry  prosper  ? 
No,  not  because  the  tariff  was  not  favorable  to  that  particular  indus- 

18 


try,  but  because  it  could  not  prosper  unless  other  industries  could 
prosper.  There  must  be  general  employment  and  general  thrift  to 
enable  any  industry  to  sell  its  product." 

MR.  YOUNG.  —  "Is  that  why  you  oppose  free  raw  materials?" 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "  That  is  exactly  it.  The  farmer  and  the  miner 
are  just  as  much  entitled  to  protection  as  we  are.  What  is  our  raw 
material  is  their  finished  product.  It  often  costs  them  as  much 
labor  as  our  product  costs  us.  Justice  requires  that  it  should  be 
protected.  Moreover,  common  prudence  on  our  part  requires  that 
they  be  treated  fairly,  because  they  are  more  numerous  than  we  are 
and  can  outvote  us  as  10  to  7." 

MR.  THOMAS.  —  "I  call  you  back  to  the  question  of  wages  and 
living.  I  claim  that  wages  have  not  advanced  as  much  as  the  cost 
of  living  has." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "  There  again  you  are  mistaken.  Bulletin  5 1  of 
the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor  for  1903  contains  a  great  array 
of  figures  which  show  it.  One  table  I  more  particularly  recall  be- 
cause it  covers  my  trade.  In  13  occupations,  —  most  of  them 
being  what  you  call  unprotected  —  including  blacksmiths,  painters, 
machinists  and  laborers,  wages  from  1896,  under  the  Democratic 
tariff,  to  1903  under  the  Republican  tariff,  increased  from  8.5  per 
cent  for  boilermakers  to  31.2  per  cent  for  carpenters,  and  there  was 
a  similar  increase  in  most  other  occupations.  This  was  three  years 
ago.  Since  then  the  mill  owners  and  the  operatives  at  Fall  River 
have  arranged  a  sliding  scale  of  wages,  based  upon  the  market  price 
of  raw  cotton,  which  is  an  advance  for  all  classes  over  the  former 
wages.  Last  January  the  American  Woolen  Company  granted  a 
10  per  cent  advance  to  its  30,000  employes  and  this  was  soon  fol- 
lowed by  29  other  woolen  companies,  the  total  increase  being 
$1,500,000  a  year.  The  Massachusetts  Census,  taken  in  1905,  shows 
that  the  number  of  persons  employed  in  manufactures  in  this  state 
had  increased  11.45  per  cent  and  their  wages  had  advanced  19  per 
cent  in  the  last  five  years.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  anything  like  it? 
I  am  amazed  that  anybody  should  complain  in  this  state  and  seek  to 
change  a  policy  that  produces  such  wonderful  results,  and  I  appeal 
to  all  my  fellow  workmen  to  vote  for  the  candidates  of  the  Republi- 
can party  which  gave  us  this  beneficent  tariff  law." 

Mr.  THOMAS.  —  "  But  this  inflation  that  you  call  prosperity  makes 
people  extravagant  and  they  cannot  save  as  they  could  in  more  nor- 
mal times." 

MR.  GRAY.  —  "  They  could  if  they  would,  and  most  of  them  do. 
The  number  of  depositors  in  savings  banks  in  this  country  has  in- 

19 


creased  from  5,201,132  in  1897,  the  year  the  present  tariff  was 
enacted,  to  7,696,229  last  year.  The  amount  of  the  deposits  has 
increased  in  the  same  time  from  $1,983,413,564  to  $3,093,077,357  I 
Is  it  not  wonderful  ?  Why,  Brother  Thomas,  as  the  man  in  the 
play  said,  '  you  ain't  nowhere ' !  But,  gentlemen,  I  brought  with 
me  a  friend,  Mr.  Welch,  who  would  like  to  say  something  just  here." 

Mr.  Welch  was  received  with  applause  and  he  said : 

MR.  WELCH.  —  "I  thank  you  gentlemen,  and  lam  pleased  to  have 
a  chance  to  take  part  in  this  conversation.  I  came  from  Wales  and 
I  take  my  old  home  paper,  The  Western  Mail,  of  Cardiff.  I  have 
here  a  little  vest  pocket  pamphlet  made  up  of  extracts  from  letters 
written  by  its  editor  when  he  visited  this  country.  They  show  how 
much  better  off  the  working  people  and  the  middle  classes  are  here 
than  over  there  and  I  think  you  will  take  pleasure  in  reading  it." 

MR.  GRAY.  —  "I  have  read  that  little  pamphlet  and  it  amused  me 
to  see  how  the  editor  squirmed  over  his  life-long  belief  in  free  trade. 
If  free  trade  were  right,  he  could  not  understand  how  people  were 
so  much  more  prosperous  under  protection.  By  the  way,  the  dis- 
tinguished Thomas  B.  Reed  quoted  that  pamphlet  in  a  speech  in 
Congress.  Here  is  another  little  pamphlet  about  Foreigners  in 
Massachusetts.  Why  have  they  come  here  ?  Because,  as  that 
Wales  editor  wrote,  it  is  a  working-people's  paradise.  It  wouldn't 
be  a  paradise  very  long  if  Congress  were  to  reduce  duties,  as  our 
Democrats  are  'now  demanding.  In  this  same  envelope  there 
is  an  article  about  the  vast  quantities  of  foreign  goods  that  are 
still  admitted,  which  shows  that  our  tariff  is  liberal  enough  now, 
many  think  too  liberal.  The  reports  of  the  Government  show 
that  last  year  the  imports  for  consumption  were  larger  in  proportion 
to  the  population  than  they  had  been  before  for  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury, and  that  the  average  rate  of  duty  upon  them  was  less  than  24 
per  cent.  Why  don't  the  people  who  clamor  for  tariff  reduction 
find  out  these  important  facts  ?  " 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  The  tariff  has  a  big  free  list  and  it  makes  the 
average  duty  on  all  imports  fairly  low,  I  admit,  but  some  of  the  du- 
ties are  outrageously  high  and  Trusts  take  advantage  of  them  to 
rob  the  people." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "I  will  try  to  show  at  our  next  meeting  that  the 
harm  of  such  duties  is  more  imaginary  than  real." 

NOTE.  —  The  papers  referred  to  above  are  in  Appendix  C. 


MR.  BRIGHT  AND  MR.  STRONG. 


WHY  DUTIES  NEED  TO  BE  HIGHER  NOW  THAN  ONE  HUNDRED 

YEARS  AGO— THE  TRUST  QUESTION  AND  CUT 

PRICES  ABROAD. 


It  was  some  time  after  the  last  conversation  when  the  tariff  talk- 
ers met  to  resume  their  discussion,  and  so  many  brought  friends 
that  a  larger  room  had  to  be  secured.  The  knowledge  of  their 
friendly  debates  had  spread  into  many  cities  and  towns  and  men 
were  talking  about  them  in  all  the  shops  and  clubs. 

MR.  STRONG.  — "  When  we  were  obliged  to  separate  we  had 
touched  upon  the  subject  of  high  duties  and  Trusts,  and  I  promised 
to  show  that  they  are  not  so  hurtful  as  many  suppose.  High  and 
low  are  relative  terms.  When  only  a  small  quantity  of  foreign  goods 
comes  to  our  markets,  low  duties  afford  sufficient  protection ;  but 
when  foreign  markets  are  glutted  and  the  owners  of  goods  feel  the 
need  of  money,  imports  increase  and  higher  duties  are  necessary.  But 
tariffs  cannot  be  changed  every  few  months  to  meet  varying  condi- 
tions of  trade,  hence  the  duties  should  be  high  enough  all  the  time 
to  protect  against  dumping  at  cut  prices  some  of  the  time." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  Now  if  we  only  had  free  trade,  prices  would 
find  a  natural  level,  like  water." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "  That  is  a  plausible  error.  They  would  find  the 
artificial  level  that  might  be  created  for  them  by  foreign  bankrupt- 
cies and  hardships  of  any  kind,  or  by  the  determination  of  foreign 
manufacturers  to  gain  our  market  and  hold  it  at  whatever  cost  until 
they  had  killed  off  home  production  of  similar  goods."  (Applause.) 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  But  in  such  cases  we  would  get  the  goods  and 
that  would  be  a  great  benefit  to  our  people." 

MR.  STRONG.  — "  Bankrupt  sales  and  slave  labor  are  not  benefits. 
Suppose  such  competition  should  close  our  mills :  could  those  who 
had  been  employed  in  them  buy  these  foreign  goods,  however  cheap  ? 
You  remind  me  of  the  man  that  a  homely  poet  wrote  about.  As 
the  verses  bring  out  a  good  answer,  I  will  hand  them  to  you  and 
leave  that  branch  of  the  subject." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "I  wish  you  would  explain  if  you  can  why  it  is 

NOTE.  —  The  poem  referred  to  by  Mr.  Strong  is  in  Appendix  D. 

21 


necessary  to  have  so  much  higher  duties  now  than  in  the  early  days 
of  the  government.  Then  the  plea  was  that  protection  was  for 
'  infant  industries ' ;  now  the  industries  are  giants,  with  full  beards, 
and  yet  the  duties  have  been  more  than  doubled.  If  that  isn't  rob- 
bery for  the  benefit  of  trusts,  what  is  it  ?  " 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "  I  am  glad  you  have  made  that  point.  Our  first 
tariff  (1789),  and  later  tariffs  up  to  1812,  were  enacted  for  revenue 
rather  more  than  protection,  although  both  objects  were  mentioned. 
The  people  were  poor  then  and  could  not  bear  much  internal  revenue 
taxation.  This  is  one  reason  why  moderate  duties  were  placed  on 
impdrts ;  the  more  imports  the  more  revenue.  Another  reason  was 
that  the  wages  of  labor  had  not  then  advanced  in  this  country  much 
beyond  wages  in  Great  Britain,  France  and  Spain,  therefore  high 
duties  were  not  needed  for  the  protection  of  labor.  Another  reason 
was  that  ocean  freights  then  afforded  a  large  measure  of  protection. 
Alexander  Hamilton,  the  first  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  reported 
to  Congress  that  freights  from  Europe  usually  amounted  to  from  15 
to  25  per  cent  of  the  cost  of  the  goods.  Now  they  are  hardly  ever 
more  than  three  or  four  per  cent,  and  on  goods  of  high  value  and 
light  weight  they  are  often  less  than  one  half  of  one  per  cent.  In 
those  early  days  there  were  no  steam  ships,  and  a  voyage  from  Europe 
took  three  or  four  weeks.  Now  the  great  ocean  greyhounds  come 
over  in  a  week  and  every  cargo  is  several  times  the  cargo  of  an  old 
sailing  vessel.  In  fact,  a  German  ship,  called  the  'Amerika'  now 
lands  a  cargo  at  New  York  which  will  load  ten  miles  of  freight  cars. 
As  wages  in  Germany  are  less  than  one  half  the  wages  in  this  coun- 
try, and  as  they  have  modern  machinery,  ample  capital  and  great 
mercantile  enterprise  in  that  country,  how  long  do  you  suppose  our 
wages  could  be  maintained  in  face  of  such  competition  unless  our 
duties  were  higher  than  those  one  hundred  years  ago  ?" 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  Don't  we  have  the  same  advantage  in  exporting 
that  they  have  ?  Do  not  the  '  Amerika '  and  other  foreign  vessels 
carry  return  cargoes  ?  And  do  not  our  great  combinations  of  com- 
panies called  Trusts  send  more  and  more  manufactured  goods  to 
Europe  every  year,  and  often  sell  them  there  at  much  lower  prices 
than  they  exact  in  this  country  ?  " 

MR.  STRONG. —  "I  answer  yes  to  all  those  questions,  but  not  one 
of  them  affords  any  reason  why  our  labor  should  be  more  exposed 
to  foreign  competition.  If  it  were,  then  foreign  goods  would  come 
here  in  constantly  increasing  quantities,  displacing  the  goods  we 
make,  and  thus  we  would  be  crowded  out  of  work  unless  our  employ- 
ers could  more  than  correspondingly  increase  their  foreign  markets. 

22 


I  believe  that  to  be  impossible,  but  even  if  possible,  what  would 
they  gain  by  exchanging  a  part  of  the  home  market,  which  pays 
good  prices,  for  more  foreign  markets  at  lower  prices  ?  They  could 
not  make  many' such  bad  swaps  before  they  would  reduce  our  wages. 
What  they  send  abroad  now  at  cut  prices  is  only  a  small  percentage 
of  what  they  produce  —  only  1 2  per  cent  in  the  case  of  the  U.  S. 
Steel  Corporation,  which  is  the  most  complained  of  —  and  most  of 
that  is  a  surplus  accumulated  while  running  full  to  keep  help  and 
machinery  employed  and  thus  to  produce  the  most  economically  for 
the  home  market.  By  reason  of  such  production  and  of  such  dis- 
posal of  a  small  surplus  at  about  the  labor  cost,  they  can  make  lower 
prices  for  their  whole  product  than  they  possibly  could  if  they  ran 
their  great  works  fitfully,  letting  fires  go  out  and  help  scatter  when 
they  had  filled  orders.  Do  you  suppose  for  a  moment  that  if  they 
got  only  foreign  prices  for  their  whole  product  they  could  or  would 
continue  to  pay  American  wages  ?  " 

MR.  THOMAS.  —  "  Possibly  they  could  not  and  would  not,  and  I 
am  one  of  those  who  believe  they  should  not.  Their  wages  are  al- 
together too  high,  and  they  make  wages  too  high  in  other  lines  of  in- 
dustry, and  it  all  comes  to  this,  that  the  Labor  Trust,  which  is  the 
greatest  and  the  most  tyrannical  of  all  the  trusts,  takes  advantage 
of  every  sign  of  prosperity  and  exacts  more  and  more." 

MR.  WELCH. —  "Can  you  blame  Labor  for  looking  out  for  itself? 
Great  Britain  has  labor  unions  quite  as  great  and  strong  as  any  in 
this  country.  In  fact  there  every  advance  that  labor  makes  is  due 
to  the  unions,  but  here  it  has  in  addition  the  great  benefit  of  pro- 
tection against  old  world  hardships.  I  do  not  contend  that  there 
are  no  abuses  of  power  by  the  Labor  Trust  and  the  other  trusts,  but 
they  can  be  and  are  being  corrected  by  laws  enacted  for  the  purpose. 
As  you  would  not  pull  down  your  house  to  rid  it  of  rats  or  fleas,  why 
abolish  Protection,  which  is  not  the  cause  of  trusts,  because  you 
think  some  of  them  use  it  to  shelter  their  depredations? " 

MR.  BRIGHT. — "I  don't  know  about  your  statement  that  protec- 
tion is  not  the  cause  of  trusts." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "Great  Britain,  a  free  trade  country,  had  trusts 
before  they  were  known  in  this  country,  and,  as  Mr.  Blaine  said,  is 
*  plastered  all  over  with  trusts  ' .  I  think  this  proves  that  trusts  are 
not  due  to  protection." 

MR.  YOUNG.  —  "I  have  a  little  pamphlet  here  on  the  subject  of 
Trusts  and  the  Tariff,  which  I  have  found  very  instructive.  It  also 
contains  some  interesting  information  as  to  the  relative  value  of  our 
home  and  foreign  markets,  and  of  how  much  more  would  be  lost 

XOTK.  —  The  "Trusts  and  Tariff"  pamphlet  is  in  Appendix  D. 


than  gained  if  wages  had  to  be  cut  in  order  to  enable  our  manufac- 
turers to  make  greater  inroads  abroad." 

MR.  THOMAS. —  "O  you  all  seem  to  have  documents  to  sustain 
your  fallacies,  but  I  tell  you  the  people  are  getting  tired  of  your  high 
tariff  and  they  are  getting  so  they  don't  believe  anything  you  say 
or  print.  The  very  fact  that  many  high  Republicans,  when  they 
come  before  the  people  for  office,  talk  in  favor  of  liberal  tariff  con- 
cessions, is  proof  enough  to  me  that  free  trade  is  right  and  they  know 
it."  (Laughter.) 

"That  is  a  good  joke  on  the  politicians,"  said  Mr.  Gray,  "but 
when  you  think  seriously  about  it  you  can  all  see  that  it  does  not 
reflect  upon  the  tariff.  This  is  not  the  first  time  in  history  when 
candidates  have  prayed  'Good  Lord  and  good  Devil ' !  "  (Laughter 
and  applause.) 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "Let  me  remind  you,  friends,  that  above  all  ques- 
tions of  politics,  and  back  of  all  questions  of  when  or  how  the  tariff 
should  be  revised,  lies  the  great  vital  question  of  preserving  our  na- 
tional policy  and  our  national  superiority.  The  idea  that  protection 
is  a  temporary  expedient  is  a  great  mistake.  The  idea  that  we 
should  gradually  reduce  duties  as  our  industries  get  on  their  feet  is 
equally  a  mistake.  You  talk  about  Trusts  being  giants  ;  but  please 
bear  in  mind  that  the  labor  employed  by  Trusts  is  no  stronger  than 
the  labor  employed  by  companies  or  firms  or  individuals.  There  is 
no  way  under  the  sun  by  which  our  wages  can  be  kept  twice  as  high 
as  in  Britain,  or  three  times  as  high  as  in  Continental  Europe,  or 
five  to  eight  times  as  high  as  in  Japan,  without  preserving  good 
protective  duties.  This  is  what  makes  this  nation  superior  to  others. 
Why  should  we  wish  to  change  it  ?  Why  should  we  even  risk  it  ?  " 

MR.  BRIGHT. — l  I  see  that  you  are  unyielding  and  unprogressive 
and  — 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "I  beg  your  pardon,  but  I  object  to  being  called 
unprogressive.  Did  the  world  ever  see  such  progress  as  we  are 
making  under  protection?" 

MR.  BRIGHT. — "I  hope  I  gave  no  offence.  What  I  meant  was 
that  you  were  not  willing  to  progress  towards  a  more  liberal  tariff. 
Would  you  not  consider  reciprocity  ?  " 

MR.  STRONG. — "Our  time  is  up,  but  if  you  would  like  to  talk 
reciprocity  at  our  next  meeting,  I  will  gladly  consider  it." 


24 


MR.  BRIGHT  AND  MR.  STRONG. 


RECIPROCITY  —  TWO  KINDS    DESCRIBED  AND   THE   WORKING 

THEREOF  ILLUSTRATED  —  SOMEWHAT  DISTRUSTED  BY  BOTH 

REAL  FREE  TRADERS  AND  TRUE  PROTECTIONISTS. 


When  the  members  of  the  "Bright  and  Strong  Club,"  as  they 
had  begun  to  call  themselves,  met  to  consider  reciprocity,  the  at- 
tendance was  still  further  increased,  for  certain  politicians  had 
made  that  subject  of  renewed  interest  in  Massachusetts.  The 
leading  disputants  plunged  into  the  merits  at  once. 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "Let  us  begin  at  the  beginning  and  inquire  what 
Reciprocity  is." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "I  think  we  can  easily  agree  that  it  is  an  agree- 
ment between  two  countries  that  each  will  admit  the  other's  goods 
free  cf  duty,  or  at  lower  duties  than  those  of  the  general  tariff,  but 
usually  the  agreement  is  confined  to  certain  goods  which  are  named, 
and  they  are  not  necessarily  the  same  goods  in  each  country." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "Your  definition  is  correct  and  it  raises  the 
question  whether  or  not  our  government  has  a  right  to  take  away 
protection  from  one  man's  products,  that  another  man's  products 
may  gain  a  foreign  market.  There  are  two  kinds  of  reciprocity: 
one  is  confined  to  similar  articles,  which  compete  with  each  other, 
which  is  free  trade  so  far  as  it  goes,  and  I  may  add  that  this  kind 
is  generally  favored  by  the  Democratic  party  in  this  country;  the 
other  kind  is  limited  to  dissimilar  products,  which  do  not  compete 
with  each  other,  an  exchange  of  which  on  favored  terms  seems  to 
be  mutually  beneficial,  and  this  is  the  kind  generally  favored  by 
the  Republican  party." 

MR.  YOUNG.—  "Please  illustrate." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "I  will.  From  1854  to  1866  we  had  a  reciprocity 
treaty  with  Great  Britain  in  relation  to  our  trade  with  her  Canadian 
provinces.  It  was  confined  to  natural  products  only,  imports  and 
exports  alike.  Of  what  benefit  could  it  be  to  swap  hay  for  hay, 
lumber  for  lumber,  coal  for  coal  and  fish  for  fish  ?  It  gave  the  Ca- 
nadians an  advantage  because,  owing  to  their  lower  wages,  cheaper 
lands  and  cheaper  fertilizers,  they  could  and  did  flood  our  markets, 

25 


to  the  injury  of  our  producers.  Canada  sold  more  here  than  we 
sold  there.  This  turned  the  balance  of  trade  against  us  the  last 
seven  years  of  the  treaty  by  $20,000,000,  besides  which  our  Treasury 
lost  considerable  revenue.  The  Canadians  would  not  then  and  will 
not  now  reduce  duties  on  our  manufactures,  and  they  refuse  reci- 
procity, except  of  the  old  kind.  They  are  doing  well  under  protec- 
tion and  our  present  trade  with  Canada  is  three  times  what  it  was 
under  reciprocity." 

MR.  YOUNG.  —  "  Now  can  you  give  us  an  instance  of  reciprocity 
in  non-competing  products?" 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "Yes,  and  you  will  see  what  a  contrast  it  pre- 
sents. Brazil  produces  coffee  and  rubber  and  we  do  not.  We 
produce  wheat  and  machinery  and  she  does  not  to  any  considerable 
extent.  Under  the  McKinley  tariff  Secretary  Elaine  negotiated  a 
treaty  with  Brazil  for  the  free  or  favored  exchange  of  unlike  good's, 
including  some  that  were  similar  but  not  highly  competitive.  It 
worked  well  for  both  countries.  But  when  the  Democrats  got  into 
power  in  1894  they  terminated  it,  with  a  number  of  other  similar 
treaties,  their  party  in  national  convention  having  denounced  that 
kind  of  reciprocity  as  a  'sham.'  Under  the  treaty  our  trade  with 
Brazil  handsomely  increased.  Without  reciprocity,  it  is  smaller 
now  by  nearly  twenty  million  dollars  a  year." 

MR.  GRAY.  —  "These  two  instances  —  Canada  and  Brazil  —  show 
that  reciprocity  in  similar  goods  involves  loss  to  one  party  or  the 
other,  while  reciprocity  in  dissimilar  goods  is  mutually  beneficial 
—  at  least  so  far  as  two  contracting  countries  are  concerned.  If 
it  should  make  trouble  with  other  countries,  then  perhaps  it  had 
better  not  be  undertaken." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "Here  you  all  are,  at  it  again,  looking  at  the  sub- 
ject from  the  view  point  of  producers  and  not  considering  the  con- 
sumer. You  don't  seem  to  think  it  would  be  a  great  benefit  to  the 
working  people  in  our  factories,  stores  and  on  our  railroads  to  get 
cheap  food  from  Canada." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "We  do  consider  the  consumer.  By  protecting 
our  farmers  from  outside  competition,  we  encourage  a  great  domes- 
tic production,  which  adds  enormously  to  the  world's  supply  of  food 
and  makes  it  cheaper  than  it  otherwise  would  be ;  and  by  admitting 
coffee,  tea  and  other  non-competing  products  free,  we  secure  a 
cheaper  breakfast  than  can  be  had  in  free  trade  Great  Britain,  kind 
and  quality  considered." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "Your  stand-pat  leaders  don't  hesitate  to  keep 
sugar  dear  by  refusing  reciprocity  with  Germany,  when  they  know- 
that  we  have  to  import  more  than  one  half  the  sugar  we  consume, 
and  know  that  if  we  would  only  admit  German  beet  sugar  free  we 

could  get  the  Germans  to  admit  at  low  duties  quantities  of  our  meat 

26 


products  and  cereals,  and  probably  some  of  our  boots  and  shoes 
and  shovels.  Mr.  Eugene  N.  Foss,  who  has  just  been  to  Germany, 
says  we  shall  surely  have  a  tariff  war  with  that  country  unless  we 
enter  into  reciprocity  with  it." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "  Mr.  Foss  seems  to  have  strong  convictions  on 
slight  information.  Nothing  that  he  has  been  reported  as  saying 
has  shed  any  new  light  on  the  subject.  Germany  has  adopted  a 
new  tariff  for  the  better  protection  of  its  industries,  especially  agri- 
culture, but  has  softened  it  a  little  by  entering  into  reciprocal 
trade  relations  with  seven  European  countries.  The  time  of  its  go- 
ing into  effect  towards  the  United  States  has  been  extended  a  year 
with  the  hope  that  we  may  enter  into  a  similar  arrangement.  The 
diplomats  of  the  two  countries  are  conferring.  .  They  may  agree 
and  may  not  ;  if  they  agree,  one  or  the  other  country  may  reject 
the  agreement.  In  that  case  our  exporters  will  have  to  pay  a  little 
more  for  the  privilege  of  selling  in  Germany,  but  our  duties  will 
not  be  raised  against  Germany.  It  takes  a  very  fervid  imagination 
to  work  up  a  war  out  of  such  small  material.  So  far  as  the  new 
German  tariff  may  affect  this  country,  not  one  person  in  one  hun- 
dred thousand  of  our  population  would  ever  know  that  a  change 
has  been  made." 

MR.  YOUNG.  —  "Would  it  be  a  benefit  to  get  German  beet  sugar 
free?" 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "  I  do  not  think  it  would.  We  are  growing  sugar 
beets  ourselves  and  making  better  sugar  from  them  than  we  ever 
imported  from  Germany.  Under  the  Dingley  tariff,  which  was 
framed  to  develop  the  industry,  our  product  has  grown  from  39,684 
tons  in  1897  to  220,722  tons  in  1905,  which  shows  wonderful  pro- 
gress. More  than  250,000  acres  of  land  and  51  great  factories  are 
devoted  to  it.  Besides,  we  have  an  increasing  growth  of  cane  sugar, 
which  amounted  in  1905  to  334,522  tons.  Furthermore,  Porto 
Rico,  Hawaii  and  the  Philippines  now  belong  to  the  United  States 
and  last  year  they  produced  516,098  tons.  These  items  aggregate 
more  than  one  million  tons,  or  very  nearly  one  half  of  all  that  we 
consume.  .  The  domestic  product  will  be  largely  increased  unless 
we  discourage  it  by  favoring  Germany.  Moreover,  we  have  reci- 
procity with  Cuba,  for  the  liberty  and  order  of  which  country  we 
have  made  ourselves  responsible,  and  in  return  for  which  Cuba  has 
given  us  control  over  her  commercial  relations.  This  arrangement 
puts  us  under  a  peculiar  obligation  to  prefer  Cuban  sugar  to  that 
of  any  other  country." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "  That  is  all  very  instructive,  but  look  at  the 
price  we  pay  for  all  this  protection.  During  the  last  five  years  the 
average  cost  of  raw  sugar  in  other  countries  has  been  2.08  the 
pound  and  in  this  country  it  has  been  4.03  cents.  Of  course  some- 

S*\  ?>v 

/T  OF  THF  X 

UNIVERSITY  I 
J 


thing  has  to  be  allowed  for  freight,  but  if  there  were  no  duty  I  think 
the  price  would  come  down  to  3  cents  here,  and  this  would  save 
our  consumers  more  than  fifty  millions  of  dollars  a  year.  If  Ger- 
many is  foolish  enough  to  give  sugar  an  abnormally  low  price  by 
paying  a  bounty  on  its  exportation,  why  shouldn't  we  have  reci- 
procity with  her  and  get  the  benefit  of  it  ? " 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "Because  that  would  discourage  production  in 
our  own  country  and  possessions  and  in  Cuba,  and  this  would  di- 
minish the  world's  supply  and  that  would  raise  the  price.  Besides, 
we  should  become  dependent  upon  a  foreign  country.  The  price 
here  has  not  prevented  an  increase  in  the  use  of  sugar  from  63.4 
Ibs.  per  capita  in  1895  to  70.5  Ibs,  in  1905,  so  it  is  not  felt  as  a 
great  burden.  If  free  sugar  would  save  for  us  all  you  say  it  would, 
each  person  would  be  benefited  only  about  70  cents  a  year.  That 
is  too  small  to  justify  the  sacrifice  of  our  producers  and  a  breach 
of  faith  with  Cuba.  I  cannot  see  why  labor  in  the  sugar  industry 
is  not  just  as  much  entitled  to  protection  as  yours  and  mine  is." 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "I  am  willing  to  give  up  protection  on  my 
labor."  (Laughter.) 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "Yes,  because  you  toil  not,  neither  do  you  spin, 
nor  gather  into  barns."  (Laughter  and  applause.) 

MR.  WELCH.  —  "  President  Roosevelt  has  made  a  brave  and  suc- 
cessful fight  against  special  freight  rates  to  different  shippers.  It 
seems  to  me  the  same  rule  ought  to  govern  our  tariff  relations." 

MR.  GRAY.  —  "  Some  of  the  greatest  students  of  the  subject  are 
reaching  the  conclusion  that  there  had  better  be  no  reciprocity  of 
either  kind,  because  it  provokes  jealousies  between  nations.  If  it 
were  not  for  the  hope  that  Reciprocity  might  help  us  to  gain  our 
share  of  South  American  trade,  I  should  say  myself  we  had  better 
treat  all  nations  alike." 

MR.  THOMAS.  —  "I  agree  with  you.  Reciprocity  is  only  a  pre- 
tense at  free  trade.  Give  us  the  real  article  and  don't  be  hum- 
bugged by  the  politicians."  (Laughter.) 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "At  all  events,  let  us  have  no  reciprocity  that 
will  endanger  our  industries  and  our  labor.  President  McKinley 
annexed  that  condition  in  his  much  misquoted  last  speech.  From 
entirely  opposite  reasons,  Brother  Thomas  and  I  have  come  near 
together. ' '  (  Laughter. ) 

And  amid  this  good  feeling  they  appointed  the  next  meeting  and 
adjourned. 


NOTE.  —  For  some  very  informing  articles  on  Reciprocity,  see  Appendix  E. 

28 


MR.  BRIGHT  AND  MR.  STRONG. 


THE  FINAL  MEETING— RECIPROCITY,  THE  CHAMBERLAIN 

POLICY,  STEEL  RAILS,  TARIFF  REVISION  AND 

PARTING  WORDS. 


The  next  meeting  happened  to  be  held  on  a  warm  night  and  as 
the  heated  term  was  near,  all  agreed  that  this  would  be  the  final 
discussion. 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "At  the  last  meeting  we  talked  about  reciprocity; 
most  of  you  seemed  to  be  against  me  ;  and  yet,  Mr.  Joseph  Cham- 
berlain, who  is  leading  a  movement  for  again  fastening  protection 
upon  Great  Britain,  talks  about  tempering  it  by  reciprocity  with 
the  colonies.  Dingley  promised  the  same  thing  when  he  fastened 
his  high  duties  on  this  country.  Reciprocity  seems  to  be  a  good 
platform  to  get  in  on,  but  not  to  stand  upon." 

MR.  WELCH. —  "Reciprocity  between  the  different  parts  of  the 
Empire  is  an  essential  part  of  the  Chamberlain  policy  of  Imperial 
Federation.  Its  great  object  is  to  bind  the  United  Kingdom  and 
all  the  British  colonies  more  closely  together  by  the  bonds  of  mu- 
tual interest.  The  system  will  then  closely  resemble  ours.  Internal 
free  trade  and  external  protection  together  make  our  national  poli- 
cy. To  say  that  external  free  trade  would  work  as  well  as  internal, 
would  be  to  ignore  national  differences  and  interests  and  our  Consti- 
tutional history.  Both  parties  in  Canada  favor  the  Chamberlain 
policy,  and  for  several  years  the  Canadian  tariff  has  promoted  it  by 
taking  off  one  third  of  the  duties  on  British  and  Colonial  goods." 

MR.  GRAY. —  "Nevertheless,  our  trade  with  Canada  is  increasing 
over  that  of  Great  Britain.  That  is  no  reflection  on  their  policy, 
however,  but  results  from  our  nearness  and  the  great  convenience 
of  getting  goods  quickly.  The  tariffs  of  the  two  countries  do  not 
stand  in  the  way  of  a  great  and  increasing  trade  and  of  entirely 
friendly  relations.  So  long,  therefore,  as  Canada  favors  the  Cham- 
berlain policy,  for  imperial  reasons,  «he  certainly  will  not  favor  reci- 

29 


procity  with  the  United  States;  hence  there  never  was  a  more  un- 
timely and  senseless  agitation  than  that  of  the  last  two  or  three 
years  in  Massachusetts  for  reciprocity  with  Canada.  You  might  as 
well  undertake  to  sow  wheat  in  the  winter  or  gather  figs  of  thistles 
in  the  fall."  (Applause.) 

MR.  STRONG. —  "I  desire  to  correct  Mr.  Bright's  statement  that 
the  Dingley  bill  made  duties  high  with  the  promise  and  expectation 
that  they  would  be  reduced  by  reciprocity.  This  was  true  of  only 
seven  articles,  named  in  section  3  of  the  bill,  and  reciprocity  has 
been  established  upon  all  of  them,  so  there  can  be  no  controversy 
over  that  promise.  Section  4  of  the  law,  which  provided  that 
treaties  might  be  negotiated  within  two  years  from  the  date  of  its 
enactment,  by  which  duties  on  other  goods  could  be  reduced  as 
much  as  20  per  cent,  and  under  which  several  treaties  were  nego- 
tiated by  Mr.  Kasson  but  not  ratified  by  the  Senate,  was  not  in  the 
bill  as  prepared  by  Mr.  Dingley  and  his  committee,  but  was  added 
by  the  Senate.  This  is  proved  by  the  Congressional  Record  and  the 
Journals  of  both  houses.  Therefore  it  is  not  true  that  duties  were 
purposely  made  higher  than  necessary,  with  the  promise  that  they 
would  be  reduced  by  reciprocity.  If  reciprocity  has  any  claims  upon 
public  confidence,  they  must  not  be  based  upon  error  or  falsehood, 
for,  as  I  have  said  before,  nothing  but  the  truth  can  stand. " 

MR.  THOMAS. —  "Well,  if  the  Republicans  had  no  liberal  inten- 
tions to  take  the  form  of  reciprocity,  they  are  all  the  more  blamable 
for  enacting  duties  of  100  or  more  per  cent.  " 

MR.  YOUNG.  —  "I  have  read  the  speech  upon  that  by  John  Sharp 
Williams,  the  Democratic  leader  in  Congress,  and  I  have  looked  up 
the  imports  of  such  articles  and  the  prices  of  similar  United  States 
goods;  and  what  do  you  think  I  found?  Out  of  nearly  a  billion 
dollars'  worth  of  imports  that  year,  all  that  he  cited  which  bore 
thosfc  high  duties  amounted  to  only  about  $3000!  It  did  not  seem 
to  occur  to  Mr.  Williams  that  if  the  duties  are  more  than  100  per 
cent  on  the  value  of  the  goods,  they  are  not  added  to  the  price,  for 
the  price  is  the  value !  What  harm  is  there  in  a  duty  of  6  cents  a 
yard  on  calico  when  you  can  buy  equally  good  calico  at  any  dry 
goods  store  in  this  whole  country  for  6  cents  ?"  (Laughter.) 

MR.  THOMAS. —  "Where's  the  sense  in  keeping  duties  so  high  ? 
Why  not  revise  the  tariff  and  get  rid  of  such  monstrosities  ?" 

MR.  GRAY. —  "Why  cry  for  a  theoretical  hurt?  Domestic  com- 
petition having  brought  down  prices  so  that  they  are  actually  below 
some  of  the  duties,  this  is  one  of  the  triumphs  of  protection.  Prices, 
however,  are  always  fluctuating  and  sometimes  duties  need  to  be 
high  to  prevent  the  shutting  of  our  mills  by  the  dumping  here  of 
foreign  bankrupt  stocks.  Take  a  case  like  this:  In  January  and 
February,  1890,  steel  rails  in  England  were  regularly  quoted,  free 

3° 


on  board,  at  $35  a  ton;  in  May  at  only  $23.75 — a  fall  of  more 
than  $11  in  three  months.  From  May  to  August,  1886,  they  were 
$16.42;  but  in  the  fore  part  of  1890  they  were  more  than  twice  that. 
Mr.  James  M.  Swank  of  Philadelphia,  the  highest  authority  in  this 
country  on  iron  and  steel,  well  says  that  'we  do  not  need  protec- 
tion against  British  steel  rails  at  $35  per  ton,  but  against  steel  rails 
at  $16.42  per  ton.'  The  same  is  true  in  varying  degrees  of  other 
commodities.  The  point  I  make  is  that  if  we  are  to  have  protec- 
tion at  all  the  duties  must  be  high  enough  to  guard  against  violent 
fluctuations  in  foreign  prices,  for  of  course  we  cannot  alter  our 
tariff  every  little  while  to  conform  to  them.  (Applause.) 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "No  matter  about  British  prices.  Didn't  Mr. 
Schwab  write  another  Pittsburg  steel  magnate  in  1899,  'You  know 
we  can  make  steel  rails  at  a  profit  for  $12  a  ton?'  This  was  in- 
side information  but  it  got  out.  Now  why  not  revise  the  tariff  and 
give  the  American  people  the  benefit  of  $12  rails?"  (Applause.) 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "I  suppose  Mr.  Schwab  did  use  some  such  ex- 
pression, but  it  was  very  incomplete  information.  It  had  reference 
to  the  Carnegie  Steel  Company's  ability  to  compete,  and  it  was 
based  on  the  cost  of  manufacture  and  not  on  the  cost  of  the  mate- 
rials. Look  in  the  U.  S.  Statistical  Abstract  and  you  will  see  that 
the  price  of  Bessemer  pig  iron  at  Pittsburg  in  1899  was  $19.03  a 
ton.  It  takes  more  than  a  ton  of  pig  to  make  a  ton  of  rails. 
So  if  the  steel  company  had  been  obliged  to  purchase  its  mate- 
rial, it  would  have  lost  from  $8  to  $10  a  ton  on  all  the  rails  it 
sold  for  $12.  (Applause.)  Ever  since  then  the  price  of  pig  has 
been  above  $12,  and  the  U.  S.  Steel  Corporation,  though  the  largest 
producer  of  iron  ore  and  pig  iron  in  the  country,  and  having  ves- 
sels and  railroads  of  its  own  for  assembling  the  materials,  is  con- 
stantly in  the  market  as  a  buyer  of  pig  and  has  paid  from  $13.76 
to  $18  for  it  during  the  last  four  years.  This  completely  disposes 
of  the  $12  story,  for  of  course  it  would  be  absurd  to  expect  pro- 
ducers to  give  away  their  raw  material."  (Applause.) 

MR.  WELCH.  —  " Mr.  Bright  says  'No  matter  about  British  prices,' 
but  I  think  they  come  in  pat  here,  for  since  1899  the  average  price 
of  steel  rails  in  England  has  been  $29.04  the  ton,  while  in  this 
country  it  has  been  only  $28.62  and  is  only  $28  now.  Speaking  of 
these  prices,  General  Draper  made  a  good  point  in  a  speech  when 
he  showed  that  if  the  duty  of  $7.84  were  added  to  the  English 
price,  (as  our  free  trade  friends  say  it  always  is),  the  price  here 
would  have  been  $8.26  the  ton  more  than  has  been  charged  here." 

MR.  THOMAS.  —  "Why  does  the  Steel  Trust  deliver  rails  in  Can- 
ada for  $22,  and  demand  $28  here?" 

,  MR.  WELCH.  —  "Because  there  are  two  important  steel  plants  in 
Canada  to  which  the  Dominion  government  pays  bounties  on  bil- 

3* 


lets  and  rails.  This  compels  the  British,  the  Belgian  and  the  United 
States  rail  makers  to  cut  prices  in  Canada  if  they  sell  there." 

MR.  THOMAS.  —  "Well,  if  they  can  sell  there  for  $22  they  can 
here." 

MR.  WELCH.  —  "That  does  not  follow.  There  is  no  probability 
that  they  make  a  living  profit  in  Canada.  Manufacturers  in  all 
countries  get  more  at  home  than  abroad.  They  have  to  or  they 
could  not  afford  to  do  business.  But  the  home  price  is  not  excess- 
ive. It  has  come  down  from  $166  in  1867,  before  we  made  steel 
rails,  to  $28  now.  The  protective  policy  which  has  made  this  pos- 
sible has  also  brought  down  the  cost  of  hauling  a  bushel  of  wheat 
by  rail  from  Chicago  to  New  York  from  44.2  cents  in  1867  to  10.2 
cents  in  1906.  Thus,  not  only  do  our  workmen  get  general  em- 
ployment at  high  wages,  but  consumers  get  the  benefit  of  cheaper 
freights,  which  means  cheaper  food."  (Applause.) 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "Still  I  think  the  tariff  ought  to  be  revised." 

MR.  GRAY.  — "Of  course  it  will  be  some  day,  but  every  reason 
which  any  of  you  has  given  for  it,  or  which  has  been  advanced  in 
Congress,  has  been  answered.  Why  act  without  reason?  Why 
disturb  prosperity  ?  Why  should  Massachusetts  invite  reprisals  by 
being  singular,  sectional  and  selfish?"  What  do  you  seek  by  re- 
vision? 

MR.  BRIGHT.  —  "We  seek  lower  prices  and  we  believe  lower 
duties  will  bring  them." 

MR.  GRAY.  —  "I  thank  you  for  that  honest  admission.  But 
lower  prices  will  mean  lower  wages.  More  than  once  lower  duties 
have  meant  no  wages  at  all,  for  they  have  closed  our  mills.  Cheap- 
ness at  the  expense  of  employment  would  be  a  dear  mistake.  If 
scaling  down  is  what  revision  means,  we  had  better  postpone  it  as 
long  as  we  can." 

MR.  STRONG.  —  "Gentlemen,  our  time  is  up  and  we  must  part. 
Not  only  have  we  formed  a  pleasant  acquaintanceship  with  each 
other,  which  I  hope  will  be  a  lasting  friendship,  but  I  think  we 
have  learned  a  great  deal  about  the  tariff.  And  is  it  too  much  to 
claim  that  this  knowledge  makes  us  love  our  country  a  little  better  ? 
Before  we  part  let  us  sing  '  America.'  Mr.  Bright  will  like  it  be- 
cause it  has  the  same  tune  as  'God  Save  the  King,'  and  Mr.  Thomas 
will  like  it  because  that  tune  is  said  to  have  been  'made  in  Ger- 
many,' '(laughter)  and  all  of  us  will  like  it  because  it  makes  us 
feel  that  we  have  the  greatest,  the  freest,  the  most  prosperous  and 
the  happiest  country  in  the  world."  (Hearty  applause,  in  which 
all  joined,  and  then  sang  "My  country,  'tis  of  thee.") 


APPENDIXES. 


APPENDIX    A. 


INTRODUCTION. 

This  most  interesting  and  instructive  speech  by  the  late  Mr.  Elaine  brings 
the  tariff  history  of  the  United  States  down  to  1890.  The  McKinley  tariff  was 
then  enacted  and  the  industries  of  the  people  sprang  forward,  as  Mr.  Gladstone 
said,  "by  leaps  and  bounds."  But  a  fierce  war  was  made  upon  the  tariff  by  the 
Democratic  party,  and  though  labor  was  more  generally  employed  and  at  higher 
wages  in  1892  than  it  had  ever  been  before,  the  unfortunate  labor  difficulties  at 
Homestead,  Buffalo,  Coal  Creek  and  Cceur  d'Alene,  though  in  no  way  growing 
out  of  the  tariff,  were  used  to  create  prejudice  against  the  Republican  party, 
which,  being  in  power,  was  obliged  to  enforce  the  laws,  and  the  result  was  the 
restoration  of  the  Democratic  party  to  full  power,  pledged  to  enact  a  tariff  for 
revenue  only. 

In  anticipation  of  such  a  law,  business  "  took  in  sail "  and  became  depressed 
and  within  six  weeks  after  Mr.  Cleveland's  second  inauguration  the  country  was 
convulsed  by  a  panic.  This  and  the  four  years  of  hard  times  which  followed 
were  charged  by  the  Democrats  to  the  coinage  of  silver  dollars  which  the  people 
would  not  take  at  their  face  value,  but  the  panic  was  precipitated  by  the  declara- 
tion of  Mr.  Cleveland's  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that  when  gold  in  the  treasury 
should  be  exhausted  he  would  pay  the  public  creditors  with  the  overvalued 
silver  dollars.  When  Mr.  Cleveland  assured  the  world  that  this  should  not  be 
done,  the  panic  was  over,  but  the  depression  of  industries  continued,  and  this 
was  due  entirely  to  the  impending  calamity  of  a  free  trade  tariff. 

When  the  Wilson  tariff  was  reported  to  the  House,  Mr.  Wilson  confessed 
that  it  was  "  a  political  bill."  It  was  not  for  revenue  only,  as  had  been  promised, 
and  when  enacted  it  was  so  protective  in  spots  that  Mr.  Cleveland  called  it  an 
act  of  "perfidy  and  dishonor,"  but  allowed  it  to  become  a  law  without  his 
signature.  Its  withdrawal  of  protection  from  industries  which  needed  protection 
the  most,  and  its  many  incongruities,  caused  a  continuance  of  the  hard  times 
and  such  a  deficit  in  the  revenues  as  necessitated  a  large  increase  in  the  public 
debt  in  time  of  profound  peace. 

In  1896  the  people  condemned  it,  elected  McKinley  President  and  restored 
the  Republican  party  to  power.  In  anticipation  of  the  Dingley  tariff,  which  was 
enacted  the  next  year,  business  revived  and  as  a  result  of  that  scientific,  equit- 
able and  non-sectional  law,  the  country  has  ever  since  enjoyed  the  greatest 
prosperity  in  its  history.  But  some  people  cannot  bear  prosperity  and  the  tariff 
is  again  bitterly  assailed,  partly  as  the  McKinley  law  was  assailed  in  1892  by  a 
great  outcry  against  prices,  and  partly  by  falsely  charging  that  the  new  problem 
of  trusts  is  a  child  of  the  tariff.  Hence  it  is  most  opportune  for  voters  to  read 
the  tariff  history  of  the  country,  so  admirably  given  by  Mr,  Blaine  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages. 

BOSTON,  1906 


CONDENSED    HISTORY    OF    AMERICAN 
TARIFF  ACTS 

AND    THEIR    EFFECTS    UPON    INDUSTRIES. 


SPEECH    OF   HON.  JAMES    G.   ELAINE,  AT   THE   POLO  GROUNDS 
(HARLEM),  NEW  YORK,  SEPTEMBER  29,  1888. 


A  TRIBUTE  TO  GENERAL  HARRISON. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Fellow-Citizens :  —  General  Harrison  has  shown  remarkable 
ability  in  condensing  a  whole  argument  within  the  dimensions  of  a  proverb. 
This  is  a  great  and  rare  talent.  It  was  the  striking  feature  in  Franklin's  mode 
of  reasoning,  and  was  practiced  by  Lincoln  with  irresistible  effect.  When 
General  Harrison,  in  his  letter  of  acceptance,  described  the  dogmatic  free  traders 
as  "students  of  maxims  and  not  of  markets,"  he  exposed  in  one  brief  sentence 
the  fallacy  and  the  weakness  of  their  economic  creed.  They  are  in  truth  simply 
theorists,  perpetually  arguing  from  arbitrary  premises  to  an  ideal  conclusion, 
and  blindly  rejecting  the  teachings  of  a  century's  experience  —  a  century  during 
which  protective  and  revenue  tariffs  have  had  an  equal  chance  to  exhibit  the 
results  of  their  operations  and  of  their  relative  effect  upon  all  the  material 
interests  of  the  country.  Whoever  deceives  himself  as  to  the  facts  of  the 
history  of  this  long  period,  does  so  wilfully  or  ignorantly. 

THE  FIRST  ACT  THAT  WAS  PASSED. 

From  the  foundation  of  the  Government  to  the  war  of  1812  there  was  no 
embittered  controversy  on  the  question  of  the  tariff.  The  first  act  passed  for 
levying  duties  on  "foreign  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,"  was  reported  by  Mr. 
Madison,  afterwards  President  of  the  United  States,  and  was  in  its  preamble 
declared  to  be  "  for  the  support  of  Government,  for  the  discharge  of  the  debts  of 
the  United  States,  and  for  the  encouragement  and  protection  of  manufactures." 
It  was  the  second  enactment  placed  on  the  statute  book  of  the  United  States, 
and  received  President  Washington's  approval  on  an  auspicious  and  prophetic 
anniversary  —  the  Fourth  of  July,  1789.  It  affirmed  both  the  power  and  the 
policy  of  protective  duties  —  the  affirmation  being  sealed  by  the  unanimous  vote 
of  the  Senate  and  by  a  majority  of  more  than  five  to  one  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives—  both  Houses  containing  many  of  those  who  had  taken  a  prominent 
part  in  framing  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Since  that  vote  all 
arguments  against  the  Constitutional  right  and  power  of  the  Government  to  levy 
protective  duties  have  been  as  futile  as  a  contradiction  of  Euclid's  demonstrations. 

INCREASING  THE  RATE  OF  DUTY. 

Between  the  adoption  of  the  First  Tariff  Act  and  the  beginning  of  the  war 
of  1812,  twelve  additional  acts  were  passed,  generally  increasing  the  rate  of  duty 
and  adding  to  their  protective  power.  The  indisputable  effect  of  these  protective 
acts  had  been  to  stimulate  the  growth  of  all  the  material  interests  of  the  country 
in  a  remarkable  degree.  The  population  increased  in  a  greater  ratio  from  1 790 
to  1810  than  in  any  subsequent  twenty  years  in  the  life  of  the  Republic,  and 
this  was  an  index  of  the  growth  of  agriculture,  manufactures  and  commerce 
which  was  so  great  as  to  draw  the  attention  of  all  Europe. 

The  annual  messages  of  Washington  and  Jefferson,  representing  in  their 
persons  both  the  political  schools  into  which  the  people  were  then  divided,  give 
ample  testimony  to  this  end.  In  his  message  of  December,  1795,  six  years  after 
the  National  Government  was  organized,  Washington  spoke  of  "our  agriculture, 

35 


commerce,  and  manufactures  prospering  beyond  former  example,"  and  "every 
part  of  the  Union  displaying  indications  of  rapid  and  various  improvement; 
with  burdens  so  light  as  scarcely  to  be  perceived."  In  his  message  of  the 
following  year  he  urged  upon  Congress  "the  necessity  of  accelerating  the 
establishment  of  certain  useful  manufactures  by  the  intervention  of  legislative 
aid  and  protection." 

In  his  first  message  delivered  in  December,  1801,  Jefferson  felicitated 
Congress  upon  the  revenue  derived  from  tariff  duties,  and  suggested  that  "there 
is  now  reasonable  ground  of  confidence  that  we  may  safely  dispense  with  all 
internal  taxes."  Dispensing  with  "  all  internal  taxes "  and  relying  upon  the 
tariff  duties  for  "  support  of  the  Government  and  the  payment  of  the  public 
debt,"  was  Jefferson's  conception  of  a  financial  policy  —  a  policy  sternly  re- 
sisted by  the  party  to-day  that  claims  (however  absurdly)  to  be  the  inheritor  of 
his  principles. 

In  his  message  of  December,  1807,  Jefferson  was  able  to  advise  Congress  of 
a  heavy  surplus  in  the  revenue.  The  only  duty  which  he  proposed  to  remit  in 
consequence  of  this  anticipation  was  that  on  salt,  an  article  of  high  price  at  that 
time  and  very  insufficiently  supplied  by  our  own  product.  But  with  .the  salt 
duty  totally  repealed,  and  what  is  known  as  the  "  Mediterranean  Fund "  at  an 
end,  Jefferson  informed  Congress  that  "there  will  still  ere  long  be  an  accumula- 
tion of  moneys  in  the  treasury  beyond  the  instalment  of  the  public  debt  which 
we  are  permitted  by  contract  to  pay.  .  .  .  The  question,  therefore,  now  comes 
forward:  To  what  other  objects  shall  these  surpluses  be  appropriated,  and  the 
whole  surplus  of  impost  after  the  entire  discharge  of  the  public  debt  and  when 
purposes  of  war  shall  not  call  for  them?  Shall  we  suppress  the  impost  and  give 
that  advantage  to  foreign  over  domestic  manufactures  ?  " 

JEFFERSON  STUCK  TO  THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM. 

This  weighty  question  was  answered  by  Jefferson  in  the  negative.  He  was 
not  frightened  into  an  abandonment  of  the  protective  system  because  it  happened 
to  yield  a  surplus,  nor  did  he  recommend  the  overturning  of  a  fixed  industrial 
policy  on  which  the  growth  and  wealth  of  the  country  were  founded,  simply 
because  the  National  Treasury  shared  the  general  prosperity  of  the  country  and 
overflowed  with  money.  This  subject  had  taken  strong  hold  on  Jefferson's 
mind,  and  the  next  year  (1808),  in  returning  to  the  subject  in  his  annual  message 
to  Congress,  he  said:  "The  probable  accumulation  of  the  surplus  of  revenue  be- 
yond what  can  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  public  debt,  whenever  the  free- 
dom and  safety  of  our  commerce  shall  be  restored,  merits  the  consideration  of 
Congress.  Shall  it  lie  unproductive  in  the  public  vaults?  Shall  the  revenue  be 
reduced?  Or  shall  it  not  rather  be  appropriated  to  the  improvement  of  roads, 
canals,  rivers,  education,  and  other  great  foundations  of  prosperity  and  union, 
under  the  powers  which  Congress  may  already  possess,  or  such  amendments  to 
the  Constitution  as  may  be  approved  by  the  States?" 

So  earnestly  was  Jefferson  in  favor  of  using  the  surplus  which  was  yielded 
by  a  protective  tariff,  for  some  great  National  benefit,  that  he  was  ready  and 
anxious  to  amend  the  Constitution  to  supply  any  deficiency  of  power  which  his 
strict  construction  creed  might  find.  Nor  was  it  a  trifling  surplus  which  he  was 
ready  to  use  for  National  improvements.  It  amounted  to  $14,000,000 —  equiva- 
lent on  the  mere  basis  of  population  to  a  surplus  to-day  of  $i  50,000,  ooo  and  equiva- 
lent on  the  basis  of  relative  National  wealth  of  the  two  periods  to  a  surplus  of 
$450,000,000.  It  never  occurred  to  Mr.  Jefferson's  mind — the  most  compre- 
hensive and  farseeing  mind  of  all  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States,  his  peer 
being  found,  if  found  at  all,  in  Abraham  Lincoln  alone  —  I  say  it  never  occured 
to  Mr.  Jefferson's  mind  that  it  would  be  a  wise  policy  for  the  Government  or  an 
advantageous  one  to  the  people  to  loan  the  Treasury  surplus  to  a  few  favorite 
banks,  as  the  administration  of  President  Cleveland  has  done.  Mr.  Jefferson 
looked  to  higher  aims  and  ends  —  something  that  would  benefit  the  nation 
at  large  and  be  of  equal  and  impartial  advantage  to  all  the  people. 

CONGRESS  TOOK  A  WISE  PRECAUTION. 

In  his  message  touching  the  useful  purposes  to  which  the  Treasury  surplus 
might  be  applied,  Mr.  Jefferson  apprehended  the  possibility  of  trouble  with 

'    36 


England,  and  had  already  recommended  the  "  embargo."  His  wise  and  beneficent 
designs  were  thus  frustrated  for  the  time,  and  the  whole  country  was  compelled 
to  face  the  probability  of  war  with  Great  Britain  long  before  actual  hostilities 
were  begun.  When  there  was  no  longer  a  doubt  of  war,  Congress  took  the  wise 
precaution  of  passing  a  tariff  bill  in  the  highest  degree  protective.  All  existing 
duties  were  doubled,  and  10  per  cent  was  added  to  this  rate  upon  all  importa- 
tions in  vessels  sailing  under  a  foreign  flag.  This  act  was  approved  by 
Madison,  July  i,  1812,  and,  despite  the  three  years  of  war  that  followed,  the 
country  made  rapid  strides  in  development,  and  was  far  richer  at  the  close  of 
the  war  than  at  its  beginning.  American  manufactures  had  indeed  been  greatly 
stimulated  from  1808  to  1815,  first  by  the  "embargo,"  and  still  further  by  the 
period  of  actual  hostilities. 

It  is  worthy  of  special  mark  that  up  to  this  time  there  had  been  no  sharp 
division  of  party  lines  on  the  tariff.  The  various  acts  were  passed  with  the 
general  acquiescence  of  all  parties,  with  some  difference  on  minor  details.  But 
on  the  return  of  peace,  the  War  Tariff,  so-called,  expired  by  its  own  limitation, 
and  in  its  stead  followed  the  famous  tariff  of  1816.  It  was  not,  however,  passed 
without  discussion  and  resistance.  Its  advocates,  as  near  as  an  analogy  might 
be  found  in  eras  so  remote  and  situations  so  different,  made  the  same  heedless 
and  unreasoning  blunder  that  the  free-trade  Democrats  and  the  supporters  of  the 
Mills  bill  are  making  to-day.  Its  opponents  foretold  the  disasters  that  would 
follow  its  enactment.  What  these  disasters  were  I  shall  not  myself  attempt  to 
describe,  but  shall  quote  two  contemporary  witnesses  of  illustrious  fame  —  one 
the  greatest  of  Whig  leaders,  the  other  a  Democratic  statesman  of  lasting 
renown. 

A  DARK  PICTURE  DRAWN  BY  HENRY  CLAY. 

Mr.  Clay,  at  that  time  Speaker  of  the  House,  in  a  speech  during  the  session 
of  1823-4,  seven  years  after  the  tariff  of  1816  had  been  adopted,  said,  "The 
general  distress  which  pervades  the  whole  country  is  forced  upon  us  by 
numerous  facts  of  the  most  incontestable  character.  It  is  indicated  by  the 
diminished  exports  of  native  produce ;  by  the  depressed  and  reduced  state  of 
our  foreign  navigation;  by  our  diminished  commerce;  by  successive  unthreshed 
crops  of  grain  perishing  in  our  barns  for  want  of  market;  by  the  alarming 
diminution  of  the  circulating  medium ;  by  the  universal  complaint  of  the  want 
of  employment,  and  a  consequent  reduction  of  the  wages  of  labor;  .  .  .  and, 
above  all,  by  the  low  and  depressed  state  of  the  value  of  almost  every  description 
of  property  in  the  nation,  which  has,  on  an  average,  sunk  not  less  than  about 
fifty  per  cent,  within  a  few  years.  ...  It  is  most  painful  for  me  to  dwell  on  the 
gloom  of  this  picture.  But  I  have  exaggerated  nothing.  Perfect  fidelity  to  the 
original  would  have  authorized  me  to  throw  on  deeper  and  darker  hues." 

Colonel  Benton's  description  of  the  same  period  fully  sustains  the  dark 
picture  drawn  by  Mr.  Clay.  He  gives  this  vivid  description  of  the  "hard 
times  ":  "  No  price  for  property  or  produce.  No  sales  but  those  of  the  sheriff 
and  the  marshal.  No  purchasers  at  execution  sales  but  the  creditor  or  some 
hoarder  of  money.  No  employment  for  industry,  no  demand  for  labor,  no  sale 
for  the  products  of  the  farm,  no  sound  of  the  hammer  but  that  of  the  auctioneer 
knocking  down  property.  Stop  laws,  property  laws,  replevin  laws,  stay  laws, 
loan  office  laws,  the  intervention  of  the  Legislature  between  the  creditor  and  the 
debtor, —  this  was  the  business  of  the  Legislatures  in  three-fourths  of  the  states 
of  the  Union.  .  .  .  No  medium  of  exchange  but  depreciated  paper;  no  change 
even,  but  little  bits  of  foul  paper,  marked  so  many  cents,  and  signed  by  some 
tradesman,  barber,  or  inkeeper;  exchanges  deranged  to  the  extent  of  fifty  or 
one  hundred  per  cent.  Distress,  the  universal  cry  of  the  people.  Relief,  the 
universal  demand,  thundered  at  the  doors  of  all  Legislatures,  State  and 
Federal." 

RELIEF  CAME  THROUGH  THE  TARIFF. 

"Relief"  came,  and  it  was  through  the  enactment  of  the  protective  tariff  of 
1824.  The  relief  was  profound  and  general,  reaching  all  classes,  the  farmer, 
the  manufacturer,  the  shipowner,  the  mechanic,  and  the  day  laborer.  The 
change  was  as  great  as  was  wrought  in  the  financial  condition  of  the  United 
States  when  Hamilton  smote  the  rock  of  public  credit,  and  abundant  streams  of 

37 


revenue  gushed  forth.  It  may  be  instructive  to  the  free-trade  Democrats  of  to- 
day, from  the  President  of  the'United  States  to  the  ward  orator,  to  read  the  yeas 
and  nays,  in  the  two  houses  of  Congress,  by  which  this  protective  act  was 
passed.  He  will  find  among  its  supporters  not  only  Colonel  Benton,  whose 
graphic  outline  of  the  previous  distress  has  just  been  quoted,  but  he  will  find 
Gen.  Andrew  Jackson,  then  a  senator  from  Tennessee  and  afterward  president; 
also  Martin  Van  Buren,  then  a  senator  from  New  York  and  afterward  president; 
also  James  Buchanan,  then  a  representative  from  Pennsylvania  and  afterward 
president;  Richard  M.  Johnson,  then  a  senator  from  Kentucky,  afterward  vice- 
president  of  the  United  States;  Louis  McLane,  then  a  representative  from 
Delaware,  and  afterward  a  member  of  General  Jackson's  cabinet;  Gen.  Sam 
Houston,  then  representative  from  Tennessee,  and  afterwards  senator  from 
Texas. 

Following  these  great  leaders  came  scores  of  Democrats  in  Congress  who, 
differing  from  the  Democrats  of  to-day,  believed  that  a  protective  tariff  was  the 
surest  and  most  effective  measure  for  the  financial  safety  and  general  prosperity 
of  the  country. 

GREAT  DEMOCRATS  THEN  ON  THE  RIGHT  SIDE. 

After  four  years  of  prosperity  under  the  tariff  of  1824,  and  when  the  public 
men  had  gained  courage  in  the  cause  of  protection,  a  measure  still  more  effective 
and  imposing  still  higher  duties  was  passed  in  1828.  Colonel  Benton,  who  sup- 
ported the  tariff  bill  of  1824,  voted  also  for  the  tariff  of  1828;  so  did  Mr.  Van 
Buren  and  Richard  M.  Johnson,  who  became  vice-president  under  him ;  so  did 
Mr.  Buchanan,  so  did  Louis  McLane,  so  did  Mr.  Hendricks,  of  Indiana,  uncle  of 
the  late  vice-president;  and,  last  of  all,  so  did  Silas  Wright,  the  ablest  Democrat 
ever  sent  to  Congress  from  the  State  of  New  York.  These  great  men,  the 
founders  of  the  Democratic  party,  were  not  afraid  of  the  doctrine  of  protection, 
nor  were  they  squeamish  in  its  application.  Wool  didn't  frighten  them  as  it 
apparently  has  President  Cleveland.  They  levied  on  wool  a  specific  duty  of 
four  cents  per  pound  and  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  forty  per  cent,  with  a  proviso 
that  at  the  end  of  two  years  it  should  be  raised  to  fifty  per  cent.  At  that  rate 
to-day  it  would  impose  a  much  higher  tariff  than  the  ten  cents  duty  in  which 
^President  Cleveland  finds  especial  danger  to  our  national  finances. 

SOUTHERN  HOSTILITY  DEVELOPING. 

Following  the  tariff  of  1828  a  Southern  hostility  began  to  develop,  confined 
mainly,  though  not  with  precision,  to  the  states  that  afterward  rebelled  against 
the  national  government.  Mr.  Calhoun  originally  favored  protection,  but  he 
had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  manufactures  could  not  be  established  in  the 
planting  states  of  the  South ;  that  free  labor  and  slave  labor  could  not  be  made  to 
harmonize,  and  that  the  example  of  free  labor  would  breed  discontent  among  the 
negroes  and  ultimately  undermine  and  overturn  slavery,  or  at  least  render  it  un- 
profitable, which  was  equivalent  to  its  destruction.  He  had,  moreover,  since  his 
quarrel  with  Jackson,  been  compelled  to  give  up  all  prospect  of  the  presidency, 
and  had  no  hope  of  conciliating  the  Northern  Democracy  on  the  basis  of  its  ex- 
isting organization,  which  was  firmly  in  the  hands  of  the  supporters  of  Jackson 
and  Van  Buren.  Mr.  Calhoun  felt  and  foresaw  that,  with  the  Southern  states 
united  in  defence  of  slavery  and  in  hostility  to  protection,  he  could  ultimately  con- 
trol the  policy  of  the  Democratic  party.  Just  then  and  just  there  began  the  change 
of  the  Northern  Democratic  party  on  the  tariff,  and  of  Northern  "  doughf aceism  " 
on  the  question  of  slavery.  Free  trade  and  the  extension  of  slavery  formed  a 
national  partnership,  and  were  thenceforward  made  the  corner-stones  of  Demo- 
cratic policy. 

A  SLIDING  SCALE  ADOPTED. 

Attempted  nullification  followed,  and  after  a  hot  contention  a  compromise 
tariff  bill  was  agreed  upon,  with  a  sliding  scale  downward  for  ten  years,  with  the 
certainty,  as  the  protectionists  believed,  that  it  would  end  in  commercial  and 
financial  disaster.  The  disaster  came  sooner  than  was  expected,  and  in  1837, 
the  year  after  the  election  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  a  panic  came  upon  the  country 
that  beggars  description  for  its  severity  and  distress.  Many  men  still  living  can 
testify  to  the  widespread  suffering  and  the  general  derangement  of  all  depart- 

38 


ments  of  business.  The  condition  of  the  country  between  1816  and  1824,  as 
described  by  Mr.  Clay  and  Colonel  Benton,  was  exceeded  by  the  prostration 
following  the  panic  of  1837.  A  peculiar  feature  in  both  cases  was  the  deep  dis- 
tress of  the  farming  interest.  Mortgages  and  forced  sales  in  every  direction, 
thousands  of  men  out  of  work  or  toiling  for  twenty-five  cents  a  day  or  less,  and 
other  thousands  compelled  to  rely  on  the  soup-houses  for  the  food  which,  for 
lack  of  opportunity  to  labor,  they  were  unable  to  supply  for  themselves. 

The  people  naturally  revolted  against  the  administration.  The  Democratic 
party  was  justly  accused  of  making  money  scarce  by  its  banking  policy,  and  of 
crushing  all  demands  for  labor  by  its  tariff  policy  ;  and,  under  the  joint  influence 
of  the  two,  it  went  down  under  an  avalanche  of  popular  disfavor  in  the  presiden- 
tial election  of  1840.  In  1836,  when  Van  Buren  was  elected,  his  Whig  opponent, 
General  Harrison,  carried  only  seven  States,  and  in  1840,  when  General  Harrison 
was  elected,  Van  Buren  carried  only  seven  states.  The  contrast  was  even 
stronger  in  the  electoral  vote,  for  Harrison  had  seventy-three  in  1836  and  Van 
Buren  had  but  sixty  in  1840.  It  was  a  popular  uprising  against  the  Democratic 
party,  a  revolt  against  free  trade,  a  powerful  affirmation  in  favor  of  a  protective 
policy. 

GOOD  RESULT  OF  THE  WHIG  VICTORY. 

The  proof  of  the  Whig  triumph  was  the  protective  tariff  of  1842,  which  held 
the  same  relation  to  the  compromise  tariff  of  1833  that  the  protective  tariff  of 
1824  held  to  the  tariff  of  1816.  And  again  was  the  policy  of  protection  most 
signally  vindicated.  The  years  following  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  of  1842 
witnessed  an  almost  phenomenal  revival  of  all  industrial  persuits  in  the  country. 
All  interests  felt  it,  and  the  popular  sentiment  was  so  widely  and  deeply  touched 
by  it  that  in  1844,  in  the  presidential  contest  between  Mr.  Clay  and  Mr.  Polk, 
the  latter  was  compelled  to  write  a  letter  expressing  his  belief  in  the  value  of 
protection,  and  a  Pennsylvania  candidate,  George  M.  Dallas,  had  been  associated 
with  him  on  the  ticket  in  order  that  the  people  might  have  the  pledge  of  the 
strongest  protection  state  in  the  Union  as  the  guarantee  that  the  protective 
system  would  be  safe  under  a  Democratic  administration. 

But  under  the  malign  influence  of  the  Southern  leaders,  the  ablest  exponent 
of  free  trade  in  the  country,  Robert  J.  Walker,  of  Mississippi,  was  made  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury.  Under  the  whip  and  spur  of  Southern  dominion,  and 
without  even  an  apology  for  the  perfidy  involved,  the  protective  tariff  of  1842 
was  broken  down,  and  the  free  trade  tariff  of  1846  was  placed  upon  the  statute 
book  by  the  casting  vote  of  Vice-President  Dallas,  who  had  stood  as  the  political 
hostage  that  protection  should  be  maintained;  while  Silas  Wright,  to  whom  the 
vice-presidential  nomination  was  first  offered,  and  who  had  voted  for  the  high 
tariff  of  1828,  ran  for  governor  of  New  York  and  innocently  yet  powerfully 
aided  in  a  deception  of  which  he  afterwards  repented  in  sackcloth  and  ashes. 

THE  EVIL  DAY  PUT  OFF  BY  SPECIAL  CAUSES. 

Great  apprehension  was  felt  by  Whigs  and  Democrats  alike  as  to  what  ef- 
fect the  tariff  of  1846  would  have  upon  the  industrial  interests  of  the  country. 
The  Protectionists  expected  that  bad  results  would  be  visible  within  a  year,  but 
an  extraordinary  series  of  incidents,  or  accidents,  if  you  please,  postponed  the 
evil  day.  Coeval  with  President  Folk's  approval  of  the  tariff  bill  came  the 
declaration  of  war  with  Mexico.  That  led  to  a  demand  for  more  than  100,000 
men  for  enlistment  and  camp-followers,  and  caused  an  outlay  of  $150,000,000 
beyond  the  ordinary  expenditures  of  Government  within  the  ensuing  two  years. 
Before  the  great  stimulus  given  to  all  departments  of  trade  by  these  large  dis- 
bursements began  to  lessen,  a  great  famine  occurred  in  Ireland.  That  led  to  an 
altogether  unprecedented  export  of  bread-stuffs,  and  that,  of  course,  brought 
large  shipments  of  money  from  Europe.  Before  the  effect  produced  on  our 
trade  by  the  famine  had  ceased,  the  European  revolutions  of  1848  began,  and 
trade  and  manufactures  over  the  whole  Continent,  from  Madrid  to  St.  Petersburg, 
were  disturbed,  and,  in  many  cases,  thrown  into  hopeless  confusion  and  panic. 
This  stopped  importations,  and  gave  to  the  American  manufacturer  a  far  larger 
field  than  he  could  have  had  if  a  normal  condition  of  business  had  existed  in 
Europe. 

39 


THEN  CAME  THE  DISCOVERY  OF  GOLD. 

While  these  causes  were  in  full  operation  and  were  producing  a  prodigious 
effect  upon  our  prosperity,  the  whole  country  was  electrified,  at  the  close  of  the 
year  1848,  by  the  tidings  that  gold  had  been  discovered  in  California,  which  we 
had  acquired  only  a  few  months  before  from  Mexico.  The  precious  metal  flowed 
to  us  in  rich  streams  from  the  Pacific  Slope  for  the  next  six  years  and  opened 
avenues  of  trade  unknown  before.  It  drew  young  and  vigorous  men  by  hundreds 
of  thousands  from  the  older  States,  and  gave  to  this  great  metropolis  of  the 
continent,  the  city  of  New  York,  an  impulse  the  like  of  which  it  had  never 
experienced  before. 

It  was  a  historic  epoch  in  the  advancement  of  the  country,  and  when,  at  the 
beginning  of  1854,  the  output  of  gold  showed  signs  of  decline,  a  European  war 
supplied  fresh  stimulus  to  the  trade  of  the  United  States.  The  three  leading 
powers  of  Europe,  as  powers  were  then  reckoned,  England,  France,  and  Russia, 
engaged  in  a  giants'  contest  on  the  shores  of  the  Black  Sea,  and  the  confusion 
which  resulted  throughout  Europe  for  the  next  two  and  a  half  years  afforded  a 
rich  harvest  for  the  United  States.  Peace  came  in  1856.  The1  spindles  and 
wheels  and  looms,  the  forges  and  factories  and  furnaces  of  Great  Britain  and 
France  were  set  going  with  renewed  energy.  The  seas  were  once  more  unvexed 
"and  Russia  poured  forth  her  grain  in  the  markets  of  Western  Europe  to  com- 
pete with  the  shipments  from  America. 

RESULTS  OF  DELUSIVE  PROSPERITY. 

The  last  of  the  causes  which  had  contributed  to  our  prosperity  in  these  ten 
years  of  happy  accident  was  at  an  end,  and  its  course  had  so  deluded  our  people 
with  the  Democratic  fallacy  that  a  low  tariff  leads  to  prosperity  as  surely  as  a 
protective  tariff,  that  in  the  spring  of  1857  Congress  passed  a  brief  tariff  act 
lowering  the  duties  still  further,  and  the  United  States  set  forth  to  depend  upon 
its  own  energies,  with  a  tariff  that  brought  it  directly  in  competition  with  the 
low-priced  labor  of  Europe.  We  were  no  longer  sustained  by  some  extraordinary 
accident  like  war,  or  famine,  or  revolution  abroad,  or  trie  discovery  of  vast 
deposits  of  the  precious  metals  at  home.  I  need  not  tell  the  result.  The  panic 
of  1857  came  upon  the  country  with  crushing  and  disastrous  effect.  Every 
interest  was  prostrated,  and  a  Democratic  President,  within  a  year  from  the  end 
of  the  last  of  the  extraneous  causes  that  helped  us,  was  compelled  in  his  mes- 
sage to  Congress  to  portray  the  disastrous  condition  of  the  country  in  as  strong 
colors  as  even  protectionists  would  have  painted.  Mr.  Buchanan  said : 

"  With  unsurpassed  plenty  in  all  the  elements  of  national  wealth,  our  manu- 
factures have  suspended,  our  public  works  are  retarded,  our  private  enterprises 
of  different  kinds  are  abandoned,  and  thousands  of  useful  laborers  are  thrown 
out  of  employment  and  reduced  to  want." 

And  that  was  the  downfall  of  the  famous  tariff  of  1846.  When  left  to 
stand  alone,  it  stood  just  one  year.  The  people  had  not  sufficiently  heeded  the 
tremendous  influences  of  the  accidental  causes  I  have  cited,  and  mistakenly  be- 
lieved that  the  ten  years  of  prosperity  were  due  to  a  low  revenue  tariff. 

THEN  CAME  "  HARD  TIMES." 

Following  the  panic  of  1857  there  were  four  years  of  "  hard  times."  Money 
was  scarce,  specie  payment  was  maintained  by  the  banks  with  great  difficulty,  as 
the  gold  from  the  California  mines  had  largely  been  shipped  to  Europe  to  pay 
adverse  balances,  and  new  enterprises  were  few  in  number  and  unprofitable  in 
result.  The  country  did  not  revive  until  after  the  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln, 
and  the  Morril!j  Tariff,  which  was  the  foundation  and  beginning  of  the  present 
tariff  system  of  the  country,  was  enacted.  Under  the  influence  of  the  new  pro- 
tective system,  despite  the  sudden  outburst  of  a  great  civil  war  and  all  the  evils 
that  accompanied  it,  including  the  industrial  paralysis  of  the  eleven  seceded 
States,  the  country  was  enabled  to  sustain  itself  and  to  revive  and  increase  in  an 
extraordinary  degree  its  manufacturing  industries,  and  generally  to  enter  upon  a 
course,  which,  for  nearly  twenty-eight  years  which  close  the  century  of  our  tariff 
experience,  has  given  to  the  United  States  a  prosperity  beyond  that  ever  enjoyed 
by  any  country,  ancient  or  modern,  in  this  hemisphere  or  the  other,  upon  any 
continent  or  upon  the  isles  of  the  sea. 

40 


-"  **^^v 

A 
VEP. 


FACTS  THAT  ARE  BEYOND  DISPUTE. 


In  this  brief  historical  view  of  our  century's  experience  with  the  tariff,  these 
facts  are,  I  think,  incontestably  established. 

First,  that  this  country,  under  a  low  tariff,  inviting  sharp  competition  and 
large  importations  from  abroad,  has  never  prospered,  but  every  such  attempt 
has  ended  in  financial  and  industrial  disaster,  prostrating  every  interest,  most  of 
all  the  agricultural,  and  operating  without  exception  with  peculiar  severity  upon 
the  wage-earners. 

Second,  that  at  no  time  in  our  century's  history  has  the  United  States  ever 
recovered  from  the  financial  depression  caused  by  a  low  tariff  until  a  protective 
tariff  was  enacted  to  take  its  place.  The  tariff  of  1824  relieved  the  long  suffer- 
ing that  followed  from  the  too  hasty  lowering  of  duties  in  the  tariff  of  1816. 
The  tariff  of  1842  revived  the  country  after  the  compromise  and  destructive 
tariff  of  1833,  and  the  tariff  of  1861,  still  in  force,  and  which  Mr.  Cleveland's 
Administration  is  endeavoring  to  destroy,  introduced  a  prosperous  era  after  the 
tremendous  convulsions  of  1857,  which  was  caused  by  the  perfidiously  enacted 
tariff  of  1846. 

Third,  that  there  never  has  been  a  time  since  Mr.  Calhoun  forced  the  Demo- 
cratic party  to  submit  to  the  control  of  Southern  leaders,  as  it  is  now  inglorious- 
ly  submitting  to-day,  that  it  did  not,  if  in  power,  demand  the  repeal  and  destruc- 
tion of  a  protective  tariff,  even  when  its  efficient  and  beneficial  action  upon  all 
the  interests  of  the  country  was  established  and  demonstrated  beyond  doubt  or 
cavil.  Mr.  Calhoun  forced  the  Democratic  party  in  1833  to  break  down  the 
tariff  of  1824  and  1828,  for  which  three  Democratic  Presidents  had  voted.  Mr. 
Polk  forced  the  Democratic  party,  even  though  it  stained  his  political  record 
with  bad  faith,  to  break  down  the  tariff  of  1842,  which  had  already  in  its  four 
years'  existence  renewed  the  hopes  of  the  country  after  a  long  era  of  depression. 
And  now  Mr.  Cleveland,  true  to  the  precedents  and  instincts  of  his  party,  seeks 
to  break  down  the  present  protective  tariff  at  the  risk  of  disturbing  the  in- 
dustries of  a  continent,  and  to  commit  the  American  people  once  more  to  the 
old  experiment  of  Democratic  free-trade  or  revenue  tariff,  with  its  inevitable 
disaster  to  the  material  interests  of  the  country,  and  in  no  small  degree  to  that 
mighty  host  who  earn  their  day's  bread  by  their  day's  work,  and  to  whom  good 
wages  bring  happiness  and  low  wages  bring  misery. 

WORKINGMEN    MUST    PROTECT   THEMSELVES. 

The  first  political  speech  which  I  delivered  after  more  than  a  year's  absence 
in  Europe  was  in  this  great  city,  last  month.  I  then  warned  the  laboring  men 
of  the  United  States  that  a  protective  tariff  was  their  shield  and  bulwark ;  that 
they  could  break  it  down  with  votes,  or  they  could  sustain  it  with  their  votes. 
I  repeat  that  admonition  in  the  same  great  city,  here  and  now.  If  the  great 
army  of  wage-workers  in  this  country  will  not  protect  themselves,  there  is  no 
other  power  that  can  protect  them.  A  century's  experience  of  the  tariff  should 
be  their  warning  and  their  guide. 

It  is  for  you  to  say  if  a  century's  experience  should  be  a  light  to  your  feet. 
It  should  teach  you  the  great  and  useful  lesson  that  if  you  do  not  maintain  your 
own  ground  no  one  else  will  maintain  it  for  you.  The  power  is  in  your  hands. 
It  may  be  wielded  for  your  destruction,  or  it  may  be  wielded  for  your  protection 
and  for  your  safety.  [Loud  and  prolonged  cheering,  and  waving  of  hats,  flags, 
and  canes.] 


-IT 


APPENDIX    B, 


LABOR  ABROAD. 


INDEX. 

PAGE 

What  Senator  Frye  Saw  in  Europe 43 

What  English  Advertisements  Show 52 

Facts  about  the  "  House  Industry  "  in  Germany 53 

What  the  "Scripps  League"  Workers  Saw  Abroad 56 

A  New  Danger  Looming  Up  in  the  Orient 57 

The  Views  of  a  British  Trades-Union  Leader 59 

Wages  of  Tin-Plate  Makers 60 

Wages  of  Window-Glass  Workers 61 

Wages  in  "  Unprotected "  Industries .         .61 

WTages  in  Mexico 62 

What  Makes  Paupers 62 

Wages  in  Massachusetts  and  Great  Britain 63 

European  and  American  Wages 63 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  chief  reason  why  it  is  important  to  maintain  protection  in  this  country 
is  to  prevent  the  products  of  foreign  cheap  labor  from  flooding  our  market,  clos- 
ing our  mills  and  either  turning  our  working  people  out  of  doors  or  compelling  a 
reduction  of  their  wages  to  those  of  other  countries. 

The  opponents  of  protection  deny  that  foreign  labor  is  cheaper  than  ours, 
when  productiveness  is  taken  into  account ;  but  every  time  we  reduce  the  tariff, 
foreign  goods  displace  our  own,  which  proves  that  they  are  wrong. 

The  great  array  of  facts  presented  in  the  following  pages  will  shed  a  flood 
of  light  upon  the  whole  question.  They  are  mostly  from  official  sources  and 
are  believed  to  be  accurate.  Those  which  were  first  presented  a  few  years 
ago  are  substantially  correct  to-day,  as  is  shown  by  up-to-date  reports. 

To  workingmen  they  are  of  the  greatest  interest  and  they  show  that  the 
Democratic  tariff  policy  would  do  to  Labor  the  greatest  wrong. 


SPEECH    OF    HON.    WILLIAM    P.    FRYE, 
OF  MAINE, 

BEFORE  THE  HOME  MARKET  CLUB,  BOSTON,  OCTOBER   19,  1887. 


Gentlemen  of  the  Home  Market  Club :  —  Your  Secretary,  in  inviting  me  to 
be  present  on  this  pleasant  occasion,  told  me  that  he  desired  me  to  speak  of  my 
impressions  of  the  necessities  of  a  protective  tariff,  as  suggested  by  what  I  saw 
in  a  recent  trip  abroad.  I  felt  a  deep  and  profound  interest  in  this  question 
while  I  was  in  Europe,  for  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  making  tariff  speeches, 
and  of  illustrating  them  by  reference  to  wages  abroad.  A  public  speaker  is 
always  under  great  temptation  to  exaggerate,  in  order  to  sustain  his  argument, 
and  I  did  not  know  but  that  I  had  been  guilty  of  exaggeration  hitherto.  I 
determined  to  know  for  myself.  And,  therefore,  when  I  was  abroad,  I  took 
more  interest  in  men  and  in  women  and  in  things  than  I  did  in  churches  and  in 
ruins,  in  architecture  and  painting. 

AMERICA'S  ADVANTAGES  FOR  ECONOMICAL  PRODUCTION. 
We  have  some  wonderful  advantages  in  this  country  of  ours  in  this  matter 
of  manufacturing,  over  any  I  saw;  I  believe  over  any  in  the  wide  world.  In  the 
first  place,  we  can  feed  a  billion  more  men  on  our  land  than  we  do  to-day,  and 
suffer  no  harm  either.  Then,  again,  we  have  an  enormous  sea-coast,  and  rivers 
and  lakes  which  the  Almighty  planted  just  exactly  right  for  us  to  use  for  our 
purposes,  to  make  cheap  freights  all  over  the  country.  Then,  again,  we  have 
more  railroads  than  all  the  rest  of  the  world  combined;  and  to-day  our  freights 
are  cheaper  in  the  United  States  of  America  than  in  any  other  country  on  this 
earth.  On  our  through  lines  the  rates  are  not  one-half  what  they  are  on  the 
through  lines  in  England.  That  is  a  great  advantage.  Again,  we  raise  our  own 
cotton  and  a  part  of  England's.  We  can  raise  all  the  cotton  the  world  needs,  if 
we  please.  Texas  alone  can  produce  every  pound  of  cotton  you  use  to-day  and 
England  purchases  from  us,  and  yet  not  be  exhausted  at  all.  Again,  we  can 
raise  all  the  wool  we  need  in  this  country  without  the  slightest  difficulty,  unless 
the  free-traders  get  it  on  the  free  list.  (Laughter.)  Again,  we  have  iron  in  twenty- 
four  states  and  territories,  piled  up  in  mountains  now  and  then,  like  those  in 
Missouri,  with  500,000,000  of  tons  in  their  bosoms ;  accessible,  more  accessible 
than  the  iron  of  any  other  country.  Again,  we  have  inexhaustible  coal  fields, 
accessible  too.  Again,  we  have,  for  I  have  seen  it,  mountains  of  salt;  I  saw  one 
in  Louisiana,  where,  with  a  pick,  you  could  pick  the  salt  out  in  blocks.  Moun- 
tains of  sulphur,  granite,  sand-stone,  marble,  lime-rock,  slate,  supplies  of  borax, 
gold,  silver,  copper.  Every  conceivable  thing  that  we  need  to  make  us  a  great 
manufacturing  nation  is  spread  out  here  for  our  use  ;  ninety-one-hundredths  of  it 
to-day  lying  as  untouched  as  when  planted  there  in  the  earth  by  the  finger  of  the 
Almighty.  Again,  and  this  meeting  to-night  illustrates  this,  we  have  the  most 
active,  earnest,  vigorous  business  men  that  are  to  be  found  on  earth.  Why, 
abroad  they  will  go  to  sleep  while  a  man  in  America  is  making  a  fortune 
(laughter);  open  their  stores  at  ten  o'clock,  close  them  at  four;  idle  behind  the 
counter,  seeking  no  trade.  Again,  we  have  the  most  ambitious,  hopeful, 
reasonable,  intelligent  laboring  people  that  are  to  be  found.  I  know  that 
sometimes  to  employers  these  days  of  lively  ambition  among  the  laboring  men 
seem  to  be  somewhat  irksome;  but  I  tell  you,  business  men  of  Boston,  it  is  all 
working  together  for  good,  and  that  the  good  sense  and  intelligence  of  the  labor- 
ing men  of  this  country  are  to  work  out  nothing  but  good  from  the  present  fer- 
ment; and  I  rejoice,  myself,  in  it.  (Applause.) 

43 


Now,  WHY  DON'T  WE  MANUFACTURE  FOR  THE  WORLD? 

Why  did  we  last  year  bring  into  our  own  market  —  I  mean  the  year  which 
ended  June  30  last  —  why  did  we  bring  into  our  own  market  $31,250,000  worth 
of  silk  goods?  You  can  manufacture  every  yard  of  them  here.  Why  did  we 
bring  from  abroad  $29,000,000  worth  of  cotton  goods  made  out  of  cotton  raised 
in  our  own  land?  Why  should  we  import  $44,900,000  worth  of  woollen  goods? 
Why  should  we  import  $49,250,000  worth  of  manufactures  of  iron  and  steel, 
when,  as  I  tell  you,  ninety  one-hundredths  of  our  iron  is  lying  untouched  in  the 
earth?  Why  did  we  import  last  year  $7,250,000  worth  of  glass,  when  the 
material  for  making  glass  is  lying  around  here  everywhere?  Why  did  we  im- 
port $5,750,000  worth  of  pottery,  when  the  best  clay  in  the  world  for  making 
pottery  is  found  in  every  state  of  the  United  States  except  Florida?  Why  did 
we  import  $12,250,000  worth  of  the  manufactures  of  hemp,  flax  and  jute,  when 
you  can  raise  hemp  and  flax  in  your  own  country  ad  libitum?  With  all  the  ad- 
vantages I  alluded  to  in  the  outset,  why  is  it  that  we  do  not  manufacture  for  our 
own  market?  Why,  there  is  but  one  reason,  Mr.  President,  in  the  race  we  are 
handicapped  —  handicapped  by  cheap  labor  in  Europe  —  and  no  other  reason  can 
be  given.  (Applause.) 

Cheap  labor  in  Europe.  And  is  labor  such  a  factor  in  the  production  of 
manufactures  as  to  overbalance  and  overcome  all  these  advantages  we  possess? 
Aye,  Mr.  President,  it  is;  because  labor  makes  up  one-half  the  cost  of  all  manu- 
factured articles.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  labor  is  one-half  the  cost  of  a 
cheap  piece  of  cotton  cloth,  but  I  mean  that  the  average  is  one-half  labor  in  all 
manufactured  products. 

How  LABOR  ADDS  VALUE  TO  MATERIAL. 

I  was  over  at  Waltham  one  day  —  a  marvelous  workshop  —  and  I  spent  a 
day  there.  I  was  in  the  office  of  the  Superintendent.  He  showed  me  some 
watch  screws ;  he  said  they  were  screws ;  they  were  so  infinitesimal  that  with  the 
eye  I  could  not  tell  they  were.  My  curiosity  was  aroused.  I  asked  him  if  he 
could  figure  out  for  me  what  those  screws  cost.  He  said  he  could.  He  did. 
What  do  you  suppose  they  cost  a  ton  by  wholesale?  Four  million  six  hundred 
and  sixty-six  thousand  dollars.  And  the  hair  springs  he  showed  me  —  $3,120,000. 
How  much  is  silver  worth  a  ton  ?  Thirty-two  thousand  five  hundred  dollars. 
How  much  is  gold  worth  a  ton  ?  Six  hundred  thousand  dollars  and  a  little  over. 
Now,  when  those  screws  were  lying  in  the  bosom  of  the  earth,  what  were  they 
worth  ?  Two  dollars  a  ton.  And  labor  alone  has  made  them  worth  $4,666,000. 
Now,  the  difference  between  $i  and  $2  a  day  on  those  screws  would  count,  would 
it  not?  (Applause.)  John  Roach,  one  of  the  best  men  that  ever  lived  in  America 
[applause] — killed  because,  though  imported  from  Ireland,  he  loved  America,  and 
was  for  American  ships  and  American  workmen  always  —  [applause]  —  John 
Roach  said  that  90  per  cent  of  an  iron  ship  was  work,  going  to  the  forest  and 
mining  the  coal  and  iron.  So  90  per  cent  of  your  machinery  is  work;  so  90 
per  cent  of  your  factory  and  your  furnace  and  of  your  forge  is  work. 

When  I  was  in  Dresden  I  saw  a  report  which  the  bureau  of  statistics  had 
just  made  there,  in  which  they  undertook  to  show  the  exact  cost  of  factories  in 
the  world.  They  said  mills  cost  in  England  from  $5.79  to  $7.60  a  spindle; 
in  France,  from  $8  and  a  little  over  to  $9  and  a  little  over;  in  Germany,  the 
same  as  in  France;  and  in  the  United  States,  from  $12  to  $18  a  spindle.  Why? 
Wood  is  as  cheap  here  as  there;  so  is  clay;  and  the  only  thing  that  is  not  is 
labor.  I  was  in  Paisley.  I  went  there  as  a  matter  of  great  curiosity,  for  I  had 
known  of  the  thread  mills  of  Paisley.  Mr.  Clark  said  it  cost  from  80  to  85  per 
cent  more  to  build  his  mill  here  than  it  did  to  build  his  mill  in  Paisley.  Mr. 
Coates  said  that  it  cost  twice  as  much  to  build  his  mill  here.  Now,  that  is  labor. 
So  you  see  that,  after  all,  is  the  most  important  factor  in  the  matter  of  produc- 
tion. The  question  as  to  whether  or  not  they  have  cheap  labor  in  Europe  is  a 
question  that  must  be  met  and  must  be  understood  by  men  who  legislate  on  the 
subject  of  protective  tariff,  or  revenue  reform,  or  whatever  they  call  it.  I  know 
that  free  traders  say  there  is  little  difference  between  here  and  there.  I  know 
they  say  that  when  you  take  the  cost  of  living  into  consideration  there  is  no 
practical  difference  —  that  is  the  usual  statement —  as  though  the  cost  of  living 
had  anything  to  do  with  it.  It  is  the  manner  of  living  that  tells  the  story. 

44 


Now,  let  me  give  you  a  few  illustrations  of  what  I  saw,  and  they  will  be 
facts,  not  fancies. 

I  WILL  START  WITH  ITALY. 

"Ah,  but  we  haven't  got  much  competition  with  Italy.  Why  go  there?" 
Why,  my  friends,  Italy  is  one  of  the  coming  powers  of  Europe  to-day.  Her 
voice  is  potent  and  will  be  more  potent  as  the  years  pass  by.  She  has  entered 
upon  a  new  life.  She  has  to-day  nearly  30,000,000  of  people,  and  has,  in  my 
judgment,  the  most  sagacious  ruler  in  ail  Europe,  King  Humbert.  She  has  a 
great  navy ;  she  is  reaching  out  for  commerce  in  a  way  that  this  great  American 
people  never  has  dared  to  try.  I  went  into  a  cotton  factory. '  A  great  many  people 
of  the  United  States  hardly  know  that  Italy  has  entered  upon  cotton  manufacture. 
But  King  Humbert  says :  "  I  have  millions  of  people  here  without  work,  sleeping 
in  the  streets," —  as  I  have  seen  them  by  scores,  and  as  some  of  you  have  — 
men  and  women  lying  down  on  the  curbstone,  with  no  homes.  King  Humbert  is 
sagacious  enough  to  say  :  "  If  I  am  going  to  have  a  great  Italy,  a  great  nation,  I 
must  have  it  a  nation  of  workers,  and  of  men  who  can  live  in  homes  with  their 
families  around  them."  And  King  Humbert  is  doing  everything  in  his  power  to 
build  up  Italy  as  a  manufacturing  nation,  and  they  have  commenced  on  cotton 
mills.  The  agent  of  this  cotton  mill  happened  to  be  a  German  who  could  talk 
English  enough  for  me  to  understand.  I  inquired  about  his  operatives.  He  said 
they  were  first-class  workmen,  good  people ;  they  did  not  understand  machinery 
very  well,  but  they  were  good  people  to  work,  both  men  and  women.  Said  I : 
"  What  are  the  average  wages  you  pay  in  your  cotton  mill  here  in  Naples?" 
"  Well,"  said  he,  "I  pay  on  the  average  about  $4  a  week."  Well,  that  was  the 
old  cry,  and  I  didn't  believe  it.  Said  I :  "  Will  you  be  kind  enough  to  tell  me 
how  you  make  your  average? "  "  Yes,"  said  he.  "  I  have  to  put  about  two  skill- 
ful men  in  each  room,  because  Italians  do  not  know  much  about  machinery,  and 
those  men  are  Englishmen.  I  am  obliged  to  pay  them  a  little  better  than  English 
wages  in  order  to  get  them,  and  I  pay  them  about  $7  or  $8  a  week."  "  Well," 
said  I,  "what  do  you  pay  the  rest?"  "I  pay  my  women  from  15  to  18  and  20 
cents  a  day,  and  my  men  from  35  to  45  cents  a  day."  That  is  the  way  he  got  his 
average.  Now,  there  was  not  a  score  of  men  there  working  for  $7  or  $8  a  week, 
—  not  a  score.  And  that  is  true  in  England,  in  Scotland,  in  Ireland,  in  Germany, 
and  everywhere  else  where  you  undertake  to  find  out  the  wages.  They  will 
pick  out  and  say,  "  We  pay  from  $3  a  week  up  to  $15."  And  you  get  to  the 
bottom  of  it  and  you  will  find  they  have  got  two  men  at  $15  a  week  and  2,000 
at  $3  a  week.  So  that  the  great  bulk,  the  90  out  of  a  hundred  at  work  in  this 
cotton  mill,  were  at  work  for  20  cents  a  day,  for  four  out  of  five  in  the  mill  were 
women.  How  will  that  be  for  competition  when  Italy  gets  to  100  mills  or  200 
mills  ?  Will  you  then  look  at  Italy  and  make  inquiries  as  to  labor  there? 

I  went  into  the  quarry,  not  the  quarry,  but  where  they  were  manufacturing 
the  granite  and  marble  which  had  been  quarried.  I  found  that  the  average  rate 
of  wages  of  the  men  was  from  40  to  50  cents  per  day,  the  most  skilled  getting 
50  cents ;  and  that  they  regard  as  a  high  price.  Four  dollars  a  day  here  for  the 
same  man.  I  asked  my  driver  —  I  hunted  a  long  while  to  find  one  who  could 
talk  English,  and  I  found  one  who  could  a  little — I  asked  him  what  he  got, 
and  he  said  he  got  30  cents  a  day  and  the  little  tips,  pour  boires,  strangers  gave 
him.  A  pour  boire  in  Italy  is  about  three  cents,  I  should  judge.  I  went  out 
with  him  a  great  many  times,  and  he  always  carried  his  dinner  with  him.  Here 
is  a  free-trader's  cheap  living.  I  asked  him  three  times  to  show  me  his  dinner, 
and  he  showed  it  to  me,  and  every  time  it  was  macaroni  and  grease.  "  But  he 
was  happy,  was  he  not  ?  "  says  the  free-trader.  The  happiest  man  I  ever  saw  in 
my  life.  But  do  you  want  your  laboring  men  and  women  to  live  on  macaroni 
and  grease  and  be  happy  ?  (Laughter.) 

I  went  up  to  Venice  and  went  into  the  government  lace  factory  there. 
Fortunately,  there  I  found  a  man  in  charge  who  could  talk  English,  and  he  was 
very  communicative,  too  —  about  the  only  one  I  found  in  all  Europe  who  would 
answer  my  questions  when  I  asked  them.  I  went  over  the  establishment.  It 
had  been  long  established.  He  showed  me  first  the  work,  and  it  was  superlative- 
ly magnificent  —  laces  from  $5  to  $400  a  yard.  I  then  went  into  the  workshop. 
There  were,  perhaps,  200  or  300  women  and  girls  at  work.  I  spent  two  or  three 
hours  with  him  looking  through  the  concern.  I  finally  settled  upon  one  woman 

45 


who  was  doing  remarkable  work.  She  was  apparently  about  70  years  of  age, 
but  did  not  turn  out  to  be,  I  think,  over  60.  She  was  working  at  a  piece  of 
thread  lace.  My  recollection  is  that  she  was  using  200  bobbins  at  a  time.  She 
would  move  them  with  a  swiftness  of  speed  that  I  could  hardly  see  them  when 

they  moved.  Said  I,  "  Mr. ,  that  woman  is  very  expert."  Said  he,  "  She 

is  the  most  expert  woman  in  this  factory;  that  woman  has  worked  here  40  years." 
Well,  I  remembered  it.  I  then  went  into  his  office,  and  said  I,  "  Will  you  be 
kind  enough  to  show  me  your  pay-roll?"  Said  he,  "I  will,  with  pleasure;  I 
have  nothing  to  conceal."  He  showed  me  his  pay-roll.  "  Now,"  said  I,  "  point 
me  out  the  name  of  the  woman  whom  I  saw  working  there,  who  had  worked 
there  40  years."  He  pointed  it  out.  How  much  do  you  suppose  was  the  most 
that  woman  succeeded  in  making  a  day  ?  Twelve  cents,  and  the  average  11% 
cents.  And  the  average  earnings  of  the  women  in  that  mill  were  10  cents  a  day, 
and  of  the  girls,  six  and  seven  cents.  They  may  go  into  a  cotton  mill  by  and  by, 
and  then  you  in  Massachusetts  will  be  interested  in  their  wages. 

You  can  go  out  there  in  Venice  and  hire  a  gondola  that  cost  nearly  $200  or 
$250,  and  a  gondolier,  elegantly  dressed  ;  four  men  can  hire  him  and  pay  for  ten 
hours  of  hard  work  one  dollar.  How  much  does  the  gondolier  get  of  that 
dollar?  The  Lord  knows  ;  I  could  not  find  out.  That  gondolier  may  be  at  work 
in  a  shop  in  Italy  before  you  know  it,  making  machinery.  They  are  as  fine- 
looking  a  set  of  men  as  you  can  find  in  the  United  States  of  America, —  patriotic, 
too.  Why,  you  look  at  that  Italian  army  of  500,000  men,  and  there  is  not  an 
army  in  all  Europe,  in  my  opinion,  superior  in  its  material;  and  what  do  they 
get  ?  Two  dollars  a  month.  (Laughter.)  Well,  what  do  you  suppose  they  get 
in  Germany  ?  Two  dollars  and  a  half ;  and  a  lieutenant  gets  the  enormous  sum 
of  $150  a  year.  That  is  an  indication  of  wages  in  Europe.  Why,  you  may  go 
in  Venice  into  one  of  those  shops  where  they  make  that  beautiful  jewelry,  —  no, 
go  into  that  shop  where  I  went,  where  they  make  this  magnificent  Venetian 
glass;  take  the  pay-roll,  and  you  may  start  with  the  overseer,  I  think,  —  not, 
perhaps,  with  the  superintendent,  but  with  the  next  man  to  the  superintendent, 
—  and  follow  it  away  down  through,  and  there  is  not  a  single  man  except  the 
blower  who  gets  over  one  dollar  a  day ;  and  you  may  hunt  all  Europe  through 
to-day  on  their  pay-rolls,  and  it  is  only  once  perhaps  in  100  names  that  you  can 
find  a  man  who  is  getting  one  dollar  a  day. 

Every  inch  of  Italy  is  farmed,  as  you  may  well  suppose,  to  support 
30,000,000  of  people.  You  may  take  every  man,  woman  and  child  there  is  in 
the  United  States  to-day,  —  60,000,000,  —  add  15,000,000  to  them,  and  drop  them 
right  down  in  the  single  State  of  Texas,  and  it  would  not  be  as  thickly  populated 
as  Italy  is  to-day.  So  they  farm  every  inch  of  land,  away  to  the  tops  of  the 
mountains,  where  there  is  a  bit  of  soil.  The  women  do  it.  I  have  seen  twenty 
women  in  one  field.  They  employ  from  six  to  eight  persons  on  an  acre  of  land 
where  we  do  not  employ  more  than  one.  What  are  their  wages  ?  From  fifteen 
to  eighteen  cents  a  day,  working  the  livelong  day  in  the  hot  sun.  If  with  a  hoe, 
with  one  of  these  old-fashioned  stub  hoes  that  would  weigh  from  three  to  four 
pounds,  with  a  handle  nearly  as  large  as  that  bottle,  —  not  half  so  exhilarating 
as  that  bottle  was.  (Applause.)  The  President  desires  me  to  say  that  this  is  an 
Appollinaris  bottle,  as  it  sets  right  in  front  of  him.  (Laughter.)  I  was  through 
there  in  haying-time,  and  the  women  did  the  haying ;  they  did  it  with  a  scythe 
like  our  own  bushwhacker,  as  we  call  it,  only  about  three  inches  wider  than  that. 
Suppose  in  a  short  time  they  get  our  agricultural  implements  in  Italy,  they  will 
free  from  that  sort  of  labor  four  out  of  five  who  are  at  work  at  it,  and  they  can 
go  into  the  cotton  mills  and  the  silk  mills  to  work  against  your  people  at  fifteen 
to  eighteen  cents  a  day. 

Go  UP  TO  SWITZERLAND. 

I  was  at  Interlachen,  and  I  stopped  at  an  elegant  hotel.  I  remember  Jung- 
frau  was  right  in  front  of  me.  I  remember,  too,  there  was  a  very  elegant  garden 
and  grounds  splendidly  laid  out,  splendidly  taken  care  of.  I  saw  a  young  man 
there  who  was  at  work  from  early  in  the  morning  till  late  at  night,  and  I  found 
that  he  was  a  landscape  gardener.  I  said :  "  Mr.  Landlord,  I  want  to  know  what 
you  pay  that  man?  He  is  a  good  man,  is  he  not?"  "Yes,"  said  he,  "he  is 
splendid."  Said  I,  "  What  do  you  pay  him  ?  "  "I  pay  him  $80  a  year  and  he 
boards  himself,  I  giving  him  a  few  vegetables."  (Laughter.)  "  Well,"  said  I, 

46 


"  what  do  you  pay  those  fellows  that  help  him  ?  "  "  Well,"  said  he,  "that  fellow 
who  is  working  there  I  pay  35  cents  a  day,  and  I  can  hire  just  as  many  as  I 
want  for  30  cents  a  day."  His  immense  herd  of  cattle  had  that  morning  started 
for  the  mountains,  where  they  would  stay  the  livelong  summer  through,  and 
away  into  the  fall,  so  long  as  the  grass  was  green  on  the  mountain  side,  going 
gradually  up  the  mountain  as  they  ate  the  grass  below.  Herdsmen  were  put  in 
charge  of  the  cattle,  lived  in  little  huts  on  the  mountain  side,  stayed  there,  and 
made  butter  and  cheese  the  whole  season  through.  Said  I:  "  What  do  you  pay 
your  herdsmen  ?  "  Said  he :  "  Forty  cents  a  day  is  a  heavy  price  to  pay  herds- 
men, but  I  think  a  great  deal  of  my  cows."  (Laughter.)  Go  into  a  Swiss  silk 
factory  and  you  will  find  there,  competing  with  your  silk  manufacturers  in  the 
United  States,  women  working  for  an  average  of  20  cents  a  day,  and  you  will 
find  men  working  for  41  cents  a  day,  —  skilled  laborers,  too,  in  that  manufacture. 

STEP  UP  TO  BELGIUM. 

Belgium  is  a  perfect  bee-hive.  It  is  about  one-third  the  size  of  the  State  of 
Maine  in  territory  and  has  6,000,000  of  people  —  more  people  to  the  square  mile 
than  any  other  country  in  Europe.  And  they  seem  to  love  to  work.  Why,  the 
manufacturing  of  Belgium  is  perfectly  amazing.  Did  you  know  she  was  fright- 
ening England  to-day  out  of  her  boots?  Did  you  know  that  she  compelled 
Adamson,  only  about  twelve  days  ago,  the  president  of  the  British  Steel  and 
Iron  Association,  in  his  inaugural  speech,  made  in  Manchester,  in  that  free-trade 
country,  to  say  that  unless  England  protected  her  steel  and  iron  manufacturers 
against  the  competition  of  Belgium  by  law,  England  would  be  driven  to  the 
wall  in  the  business  ?  (Applause.)  Did  you  know  that  she  sold  steel  and  iron 
rails  right  under  the  nose  of  the  British  lion  within  the  last  year,  until  Parlia- 
ment spent  almost  a  whole  half  day,  forgot  the  Irish  question,  and  talked  about 
Belgium  and  Belgium  iron?  (Laughter.) 

Well,  how  about  wages  in  Belgium?  I  went  into  a  lace  factory  in  Brussels 
—  the  first  place  I  went  to  —  and  I  saw  women  at  work  there  precisely  as  they 
worked  in  Venice.  I  was  able  to  get  information  there,  and  I  found  that  the 
women  there — skilled  workers  —  earned  twenty  cents  a  day.  The  wages  in 
Belgium  are  better  than  the  wages  in  Italy  or  Switzerland,  and  about  equal  to 
the  wages,  in  my  judgment,  as  near  as  I  could  learn,  in  Germany  and  France, — 
I  think  a  little  better  than  the  wages  in  Germany  to-day.  In  the  cotton  factory 
in  Belgium  they  pay  their  women  from  twenty  to  twenty-five  cents  a  day,  and 
their  men  from  forty  to  sixty  cents  a  day.  You  may  go  into  the  great  steel 
and  iron  manufactory  and  you  cannot  find  on  the  pay-roll  of  the  whole  concern 
a  single  laboring  man  whose  daily  pay  amounts  to  eighty  cents  a  day — not  one ; 
and  they  run  down  to  forty  cents.  The  women  do  all  the  farming  in  Belgium, 
and  they  do  it  for  from  sixteen  to  eighteen  and  twenty  cents  a  day. 

WORKERS  IN  GERMANY. 

I  went  first  to  Munich,  and  on  the  first  voyage  of  discovery  I  made  I  saw 
about  a  score  of  women  with  an  awkward-looking  saw  and  a  singular-looking 
block  for  the  wood  to  rest  on,  sawing  wood  in  the  streets  of  Munich  and  carry- 
ing it  on  their  backs  into  the  stores.  I  had  seen  women  doing  almost  every- 
thing in  Italy  and  Belgium,  but  I  had  not  seen  them  doing  anything  like  that, 
and  it  struck  me  as  remarkable.  And,  by  the  way,  the  women  bear  the  burden 
in  Europe  everywhere.  I,  having  a  curiosity  to  know  about  that  business,  went 
off  and  hunted  up  an  interpreter.  Said  I :  "  I  want  you  to  go  with  me  out  on 
the  streets.  I  wish  to  know  about  this  business  that  is  going  on  out  here. 
Why,  I  saw  women  sawing  wood  ! "  "  Oh,  nonsense !  that  don't  amount  to  any- 
thing." "But,"  said  I,  "I  wish  to  know  about  it.  Go  with  me."  He  went 
with  me.  "Now,"  said  I,  "you  ask  that  woman"  [she  was  about  50  years  of 
age,  stout,  healthy-looking,  sawing  this  wood,  cord  wood,  into  about  three  sticks 
each], — "ask  that  woman  what  she  gets  a  day."  He  asked  her.  She  said  she 
got,  —  she  didn't  say  fifteen  cents,  of  course,  but,  translated  into  English,  it  was 
fifteen  cents  a  clay,  but  that  she  could  not  work  all  day,  because  she  had  to  go 
home  and  see  to  the  children.  She  could  make  twenty  cents  a  day  if  she  could 
work  all  day.  I  said  to  him,  "  Ask  her,  in  heaven's  name,  how  many  children 
she  has  and  how  she  takes  care  of  them?"  She  said  she  had  six.  "How  does 
she  take  care  of  them  with  fifteen  cents  a  day?"  "Oh,"  she  said,  "  I  get  the 

47 


first  washings  of  that  restaurant,"  pointing  to  a  hotel,  "for  ten  cents  a  day,  and 
that  feeds  them."  Does  the  free-trader  in  Massachusetts  want  his  women  to 
work  ten  hours  a  day,  take  care  of  six  children,  and  buy  of  a  restaurant  the 
first  washings  to  feed  her  children  with? 

I  saw  a  very  intelligent  man  'in  Germany,  who  had  studied  the  subject  of 
wages  there,  and  I  asked  him  if  he  would  talk  with  me.  He  said  he  would. 
Said  he:  "I  will  talk  with  you  freely.  I  know  what  you  desire,  and  I  wish  to 
tell  you  that  work  is  not  in  a  fair  condition  to-day  in  Germany,  although  you 
see  they  are  building  mills  everywhere."  Said  I:  "I  do,  and  they  look  prosper- 
ous." "  Well,"  said  he,  "  manufacturing  is  not  so  good  as  it  might  be,  even  in 
Germany.  There  are  some  manufacturers  in  Germany  without  souls,  and  they 
are  actually  hiring  men  and  women  to-day  for  anything  they  have  a  mind  to 
pay  them.  They  are  paying,  in  one  factory  I  know  of,  women  twenty  cents  a 
day  for  their  work,  while  the  average  they  pay  men  in  Germany  is  not  over 
fifty  cents  a  day." 

I  am  aware  that  the  Boston  Herald  makes  this  a  knock-down  argument 
against  protection.  [Laughter.]  The  other  day  I  saw  an  article  in  the  paper, 
and  it  said,  "  Look  at  it !  See  the  fact.  Here  is  Germany  paying  lower  wages 
to-day  than  free-trade  England.  Does  not  that  show  conclusively  that  pro- 
tection does  not  protect  labor?"  Why,  how  absurd  an  argument!  Does  not  the 
Boston  Herald  know  that  there  is  something  in  the  very  air  of  this  free  country 
which  makes  men  aspire?  Does  not  that  paper  know  that  Germany  to-day  is  a  des- 
potism where  the  Reichstag,  elected  for  three  years,  if  it  does  not  do  the  will 
of  the  despot,  is  dispersed,  though  its  life  had  only  been  one  year?  Does  not. 
that  paper  know  that  under  a  despotism  the  people  cannot  be  elastic,  cannot  ob- 
tain their  rights,  cannot  acquire  the  privileges  they  can  obtain  and  acquire  under 
a  free  and  independent  government  like  ours? 

Then,  again,  the  question  may  not  be,  does  protection,  per  se,  increase 
wages  ?  Of  course  it  increases  wages  in  but  one  way.  It  encourages  men  like 
you  to  invest  your  money  in  manufacturing.  You  build  great  mills  here  and 
there;  you  have  competition.  That  makes  a  demand  for  labor.  A  demand  for 
labor  makes  high  price  of  wages.  Now  we  have  high  price  of  wages,  twice  as 
high  as  any  other  country  on  the  face  of  this  earth.  Is  not  the  maintaining  of 
these  high  wages  worth  something?  Does  not  the  Boston  Herald  know  that 
protection  does  maintain  the  high  wages  that  we  have?  May  not  the  contest  in 
the  next  twenty  years,  even  in  America,  be:  How  shall  we  maintain  our  present 
high  wages?  If  it  is,  cannot  any  man  see  that  the  protective  tariff  is  certain  to 
assist  in  that  beneficial  result  and  that  free  trade  would  simply  drag  those  wages 
down  to  European  wages?  And  oh,  what  a  fearful  thing  that  would  be  for  our 
people.  Why,  our  whole  people  consume  to-day  twice  as  much  meat  and  grain, 
reckoning  potatoes  four  bushels  to  a  bushel  of  grain,  as  any  people  on  this  earth 
except  Great  Britain.  It  is  an  absolute  necessity  for  them  to-day.  The  com- 
forts which  our  laboring  people  enjoy  to-day  in  America  are  just  as  much  neces- 
sities of  life  as  the  macaroni  of  the  Italian  is  a  necessity  for  him.  When  you 
undertake  by  free  trade  to  drag  these  workmen  of  ours  down  to  the  level  of 
Italians,  Germans,  Frenchmen  and  Belgians  in  wages,  to  make  them  live  as  they 
live,  you  have  done  a  wicked  and  cruel  wrong  to  these  people,  which  no  amount 
of  good  or  profit  to  employers  can  justify.  [Applause.] 

But  in  order  to  show  that  the  tariff  does  something  even  in  Germany,  I  wish 
to  cite  to  you  the  report,  both  as  to  the  amount  of  wages  paid  in  Germany  and  as 
to  the  advance  caused  by  protection  there,  made  by  the  German  Statistical 
Bureau  this  year. 

"  Replies  have  been  received  from  233,  chiefly  large  iron  works  and  engineer- 
ing establishments,  94  of  which  are  owned  by  limited  companies,  from  all  parts 
of  Germany.  From  the  figures  of  January,  1879" —  I  w^l  not  read  the  figures, 
but  these  figures  show  that  the  number  of  workme7 ;  increased  in  eight  years  by 
38,000,  or  30  per  cent,  the  monthly  wages  by  30,^8,765  marks,  or  39  per  cent. 
In  1879,  consequently,  each  workman  earned  on  an  average  61.83  marks  per 
month,  or  rather  under  15  shillings  a  week.  Now  there  is  a  commentary  on 
German  wages.  Mind  you,  these  are  the  wages  of  men  where  they  command  the 
very  highest  wages,  in  iron  and  steel;  and  yet,  in  1879  they  did  not  earn  $4  a 
week  from  233  establishments.  Now,  what  effect  did  the  tariff  have?  The  tariff 
increased  it  in  January,  1887,  to  66.17  marks,  a  fraction  over  16  shillings  and  6 


pence,  so  they  earned  over  $4.  There  has  been  an  increase  of  30,000  employes, 
and  that  had  resulted  in  an  increase  of  a  shilling  and  a  half  a  week  in  wages. 
Suppose  it  resulted  in  doubling  the  number  of  employes  and  you  had  360,000 
more,  would  not  the  ratio  of  increased  wages  be  still  greater,  because  the  de- 
mand is  still  greater  ?  And  is  not  the  energy  displayed  by  Germany  to-day  in 
manufacturing  enterprises  the  result  of  their  German  tariff  ? 

I  learned  from  this  gentleman  I  alluded  to  a  moment  ago  that  in  his  opinion, 
from  careful  investigation,  the  earnings  of  the  men  in  Germany  would  not 
average  $115  a  year,  —  not  over  that, — and  that  the  women  would  not  average 
over  $50  a  year.  Now  there  are  families  to  be  supported  out  of  that  $115. 
Another  man  I  talked  with  put  it  that  in  Prussia  the  average  earnings  of  men 
are  not  over  $105  a  year.  They  refused  me  admission  in  more  than  a  do/en 
establishments ;  they  would  not  answer  my  questions,  or,  if  they  did,  they  would 
not  tell  the  truth.  They  do  not  like  to  have  it  known  what  the  wages  are  in 
Kurope. 

WHAT  WAS  SEEN  IN  GREAT  BRITAIN. 

Now  cross  over  to  England,  to  Scotland  and  to  Ireland.  Take  Ireland; 
you  know  that  it  is  in  a  fearful  condition,  without  anybody  telling  you.  You 
know  that  you  cannot  ride  through  the  western  portion  of  Ireland  without 
hundreds  of  children,  men  and  women  following  your  carriage  for  miles,  asking 
for  a  penny  to  get  food  to  appease  hunger.  You  know  there  are  thousands  and 
tens  of  thousands  of  people  in  Ireland  to-day  right  on  the  ragged  edge  of  starva- 
tion. You  may  imagine  the  state  of  affairs  where  there  are  thousands  and 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  and  women  who  cannot  find  employment.  Why, 
there  were  250,000  little  holdings  in  Ireland,  of  five  acres  each  and  under  land- 
lords. How  did  they  pay  their  rent?  Why,  for  six,  eight  or  ten  years  they  used 
to  go  over  to  England  and  Scotland,  hire  out  to  the  farmers  for  the  summer,  earn 
a  few  pounds,  save  it  and  take  it  home  to  pay  their  rent,  while  their  wives  and 
little  children  were  cultivating  the  half  acre,  the  acre  or  two  acres  of  land  they 
rented.  You  know  as  well  as  I  do  that  that  is  all  cut  off,  and  that  there  cannot 
an  Irishman  hire  out  to  do  farming  in  Scotland  or  England  to-day.  You  know 
as  well  as  I  do  that  American  competition  has  killed  agriculture  in  England  and 
Ireland  and  Scotland;  that  the  people  out  of  employ  there  are  as  thick  as  black- 
berries; that  women  do  farm  work  in  Ireland  for  16  to  18  cents  a  day,  and  are 
glad  to  get  it. 

Take  England.  My  opinion,  from  the  best  sources  I  could  reach  in  Eng- 
land, is  that  the  average  wages  there  are  not  one-half  of  the  average  wages  in  the 
United  States  of  America.  I  was  up  in  Manchester,  and  made  some  inquiries 
there.  They  told  me  that  in  Manchester  there  were  nearly  90,000  women  at 
work  in  cotton  mills,  two-thirds  of  the  work  being  done  by  women,  and  that 
those  women  were  not  averaging  $60  a  year  for  their  wages.  Mind  you,  you 
must  count  out  holidays,  sick  days,  feasts,  fairs,  saints'  days,  and  all  that 
sort  of  thing;  and  when  you  come  down  to  the  net  at  the  end  of  the  year  you 
will  find  that  the  English  laborer  is  getting  but  a  mere  bagatelle.  The  men  in 
England  are  not  averaging,  according  to  the  best  light  I  could  get,  over  $125  or 
$135  a  year. 

Take  Scotland,  which  is  a  fair  test  of  wages  in  England.  I  was  in  Glasgow, 
and  I  felt  a  profound  interest  in  the  Clyde.  It  had  been  hurled  at  my  head 
more  than  a  thousand  times  since  I  have  been  in  Congress,  the  Clyde  and  the 
shipbuilding  of  the  Clyde,  that  they  could  beat  us,  that  we  were  handicapped 
with  the  tariff,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  So  I  took  a  deep  interest  in  the  Clyde. 
I  went  up  to  the  Longloam  Iron  Works.  They  cover  thirty-five  acres  of  ground ; 
they  are  right  near  to  the  coal  and  the  iron ;  the  average  haul  of  the  coal  is  two 
miles,  and  the  average  cost  of  the  coal  delivered  is  five  shillings  a  ton.  The 
blast  furnaces  are  seven  in  number,  and  the  average  product  is  300  tons  of  pig 
iron  a  day.  What  are  the  wages?  Laborers  from  two  shillings  and  two  pence  to 
two  shillings  and  sixpence  a  day.  What  would  a  Pittsburg  laborer  say  to  that? 
Skilled  labor,  three  shillings  to  seven  shillings,  and  more  of  them  at  three  than 
at  seven.  Coal  miners,  $5.59  to  $5.88  a  week,  and  board  themselves.  Iron 
miners,  from  $5.34  to  $5.59  a  week.  Pit-hand  foreman,  —  that  is  one  of  the 
high-priced  fellows,  one  of  the  aristocrats,  —  (laughter)  —  from  $6.25  to  $6.32  a 
week.  Wages  have  decreased  for  five  years  in  Glasgow.  And  Bright  said,  in  a 

49 


speech  that  he  made,  that  in  Glasgow  alone  41,000  families  out  of  every  100,000 
lived  each  in  one  room.  And  I  should  say,  from  my  observation,  that  half  the 
men  and  women  in  Glasgow  to-day  were  out  of  work.  Now  what  could  you 
expect  wages  to  be  ?  And  the  same  is  true  in  England. 

I  was  in  Liverpool  for  ten  days,  and  almost  every  day  went  to  look  over 
those  docks.  I  could  whistle  "  Yankee  Doodle "  almost  all  over  Europe,  but 
when  I  struck  those  docks  I  was  silent.  I  do  believe  they  beat  anything  in  the 
United  States  or  in  the  world.  I  was  unusually  attracted  to  them,  and  in  the 
habit  of  going  down  there  mornings  and  afternoons.  I  am  safe  in  saying  that 
I  have  seen  500  able-bodied  men,  looking  hungry,  as  a  hungry  man  looks, 
stalking  about  those  docks  and  begging  for  a  little  work,  not  getting  it;  coming 
down  —  after  dinner,  I  was  going  to  say  —  coming  down  after  the  time  men 
ordinarily  eat  dinner,  their  numbers  augmented,  and  beseeching  again  for  work, 
ten  cents'  worth,  twenty  cents'  worth,  "any  work,  for  God's  sake,  and  to  feed 
my  children."  How^c^jl.w^ages,  be  high  wheje-that  thing  endures? 

vlJ  ft  *t 

How  AjtfERjcAN  LABOR  is"  IMPERILED. 

But  I  am  rtoV  go^rigi  toTweaf y-  your '  patience.  I  have  spent  enough  of  your 
time  on  the  question  gf?  what  wages  are  worth  in  Europe.  I  say,  from  all  my 
observations  made  there,  and  they  were  made  as  carefully  as  I  could  make  them, 
and  in  all  honesty  of  purpose,  there  is  only  one  country  in  Europe  that  comes 
within  one-half  of  our  wages,  and  that  is  Great  Britain;  that  in  Germany, 
France,  Belgium  and  Switzerland,  they  are  not  one-third  of  our  wages,  and  in 
Italy  not  one-quarter.  Now,  if  labor  is  the  factor  I  said  it  was,  I  ask  you  what 
you  are  going  to  do  about  that?  If  it  ever  was  a  factor  of  importance,  it  is 
infinitely  more  important  to-day.  Why?  John  Bright,  fifty  years  ago,  made  a 
speech  in  Parliament  in  which  he  rather  congratulated  the  English  nation  on 
the  fact  that  America  was  an  independent  people.  He  said  that  the  trade  of 
Great  Britain  with  the  United  States  independent  was  worth  a  great  deal  more 
than  it  would  have  been  if  the  United  States  had  remained  a  British  colony ; 
and  then  he  added  this:  Said  he,  "On  all  the  merchandise  you  have  exported  to 
the  United  States  of  America  during  the  last  thirty  years,  your  merchants  and 
manufacturers  have  averaged  forty  per  cent  net  profit."  Well,  now,  forty  per 
cent  net  profit,  fifty  years  ago,  was  pretty  good  protection  for  a  man  who 
wanted  to  go  to  manufacturing  in  the  United  States.  But  under  the  beneficence 
of  the  tariff  we  went  to  manufacturing,  and  to-day  the  net  profit  of  English 
manufactures  in  the  United  States  can  be  counted  on  the  fingers,  I  guess 
(laughter),  for  I  understand  they  sold  steel  here  in  the  United  States  for  nine 
pence  a  pound  which  they  sell  at  home  for  twelve  and  a  half  pence,  and  paid  the 
duties  besides;  I  understand  that  to  be  the  fact.  So  that  they  are  not  making 
this  profit  to  day. 

Again,  you  and  I  can  remember  when  England  was  an  immense  distance 
away  from  us;  when  Italy  seemed  to  be  away  back  in  the  dark  ages;  when 
Belgium  was  equally  unknown  to  us,  and  Germany  was  a  kind  of  a  myth  in  the 
distance.  But  now  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  lock  arms  ;  we  are  close  together, 
side  by  side,  and  they  can  pour  their  manufactured  goods  on  you  to-day  in  ten 
days'  time.  Why,  Manchester  to-day  is  nearer  to  you  than  San  Francisco  is  in 
time,  and  in  freight  it  is  three  times  as  near.  So  that  in  the  matters  of  freight, 
distance,  communication,  telegraph  and  everything  else,  —  and  this  extends  not 
alone  to  the  seaboard,  but  away  into  the  interior  of  these  countries,  —  here  we 
are,  locked  right  up,  elbow  to  elbow,  and  that  makes  this  matter  of  cheap  labor 
of  infinitely  greater  importance  than  it  was  fifty  years  ago,  and  it  is  growing 
more  important  every  moment  of  time.  Now  what  are  you  Americans  going  to 
do  about  it?  Are  you  going  to  allow  men  who  call  themselves  reformers;  men 
who  pretend  to  believe  in  free  trade,  —  an  utter  absurdity,  no  nation  believes  in 
it,  —  are  you  going  to  allow  them  to  strike  at  your  home  market?  Instead  of 
giving  Europe  $180,000,000  of  your  market  as  you  did  last  year,  are  you  going 
to  give  up  to  them  $400,000,000  or  $600,000,000?  Will  you  allow  these 
reformers  to  carry  out  the  purpose  which  they  now  so  freely  express?  Will  you 
do  it?  They  say  you  have  duties  to-day  which  are  almost  prohibitory,  and  it  is 
not  very  often  that  you  find  a  tariff  man  who  does  not  admit  that  the  duties  are 
high.  Now  that  is  a  most  singular  thing.  Why  have  not  the  tariff  men  the 
courage  of  their  convictions  ?  Is  the  duty  on  fine  muslins  and  lace  and  curtain 

50 


iituff  too  high  when  under  it  \ve  imported  last  year  $29,000,000  worth  into  your 
market  where  the  cotton  is  grown,  and  where  you  can  make  it  as  well  as  they? 
And  yet  you  never  hear  a  man  who  talks  about  reforming  your  tariff  talk  about 
increasing  the  duty ;  it  is  about  decreasing  the  duties  all  the  time. 

Now  I  have  to  say  this:  I  wish  to  see  some  of  the  duties  increased. 
(Applause.)  I  wish  to  see  a  duty  put  on  silk  that  will  prevent  31,250,000  yards 
being  imported  into  this  country.  I  wish  to  see  duties  placed  on  woollen  goods 
that  will  prevent  $44,900,000  worth  being  brought  into  this  country.  I  wish  to 
see  a  duty  laid  on  the  manufactures  of  iron  and  steel  that  will  prevent  $49,2 50,000 
worth  of  their  manufactured  goods  being  purchased  by  us. 

PROTECTING  LABOR  BUILDS  UP  THE  COUNTRY. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  have  talked  to  you  a  great  deal  longer  than  I  ought,  and 
have  wearied  your  patience.  (Applause  and  cries  of  "  Go  on.")  But  I  confess 
to  feeling  a  good  deal  of  interest  in  this  matter.  I  confess  that  I  feel  an  interest 
in  the  American  people;  that  I  think  a  hundred  times  more  of  them  than  I  did 
before  I  saw  the  other  peoples  of  the  earth;  that  the  most  delightful  part  of  my 
trip  abroad  was  the  journey  home.  I  love  to  see  the  manufacturing  laborers 
coming  out  of  the  mills  in  my  city  and  to  contrast  them  with  the  people  I  saw 
coming  out  of  the  mills  abroad.  Why,  the  difference  is  world-wide.  What 
though  the  ambitious  restlessness  of  these  men  may  trouble  us  for  a  season,  is 
it  not  infinitely  better  than  that  solemn  hopelessness  that  you  see  in  the  faces  of 
those  operatives  abroad  ?  And  is  it  not  better  that  the  weaver  of  to-day  shall  be 
an  overseer  to-morrow  than  it  is  for  a  man  to  be  content  to  do  to-day  what  his 
grandfather  or  his  great-grandfather  did  a  hundred  years  ago  ?  Is  not  all  this 
turmoil  and  excitement  better  than  the  apparent  sleep  of  death  amongst  the 
working  people  of  Europe?  What  though  it  cause  us  trouble  for  a  while,  as  I 
said  before,  good  will  come  out  of  it.  Let  us  make  this,American  people  not 
worse ;  let  us  make  them  happy.  They  are  the  people  who  govern  this  country 
and  control  it.  This  is  a  government  of  the  people ;  it  ought  to  be  intelligent 
and  it  ought  to  be  comfortable.  There  ought  to  be  homes  and  comfort  in 
homes.  And  every  man  who  works  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  is  tem- 
perate and  frugal,  can  have  a  home  under  your  wages. 

Within  the  last  twenty  years,  now,  we  have  progressed  marvelously  under 
our  tariff.  It  was  forced  upon  us  by  the  war.  It  was  one  of  the  most  beneficent 
things  that  the  war  achieved  for  us,  —  that  Morrill  tariff.  From  1860  to  1870 
we  increased  our  manufactures  over  two  billions  of  dollars;  and  from  1870  to 
1880  over  a  billion  dollars;  and  no  other  country  in  the  whole  world  increased 
in  the  same  time  over  $500,000,000.  In  1880  we  outstripped  Great  Britain  by 
$650,000,000  a  year,  and  to-day  are  richer  than  she  is,  are  a  greater  manufac- 
turing nation.  Why  should  we  give  up  this  vantage  ground?  Why  should  we 
trifle  with  it? 

This  splendid  meeting  to-night;  this  Home  Market  Club;  the  interest 
which  so  many  gentlemen  in  this  city  evince  in  the  purposes  of  the  club;  this 
organization  in  itself;  the  fact  alone  that  there  is  an  organization  with  your 
purpose,  gives  me  courage  and  will  give  the  working  people  of  New  England 
courage,  too.  I  tell  you,  friends,  that  the  protective  principle  of  our  tariff  is 
more  powerful  to-day  in  this  republic  than  it  ever  was  before ;  there  are  more 
men  who  believe  in  it  from  principle,  more  men  ready  to  work  for  it  from 
principle,  and  it  will  not  be  long  before  the  working  men  and  the  working 
women  of  this  country  will  see  that  their  only  safety  is  in  a  protective  tariff. 
(Applause.)  

We  want  no  slave  labor.  Two  million  men,  with  their  blood,  wiped  away 
slavery  forever.  We  want  no  labor,  either  white  or  black,  in  a  virtual  state  of 
serfdom.  Labor  must  be  free,  with  all  the  perogatives  which  pertain  to  free- 
dom.—  Vice-President  Charles  Warren  Fairbanks. 

The  success  of  the  United  States  in  material  development  is  the  most  illus- 
trious of  modern  times.  It  is  my  deliberate  judgment  that  the  prosperity  of 
America  is  due  mainly  to  its  system  of  protective  laws.  —  Prince  Bismarck. 


WHAT   ENGLISH   ADVERTISEMENTS   SHOW. 

HERE  is  PROOF  OF  THE  PREVAILING  RATES  OF  WAGES  IN  VARIOUS 
OCCUPATIONS  IN  ENGLAND. 

Some  people  will  not  believe  what  we  in  America  say  about  wages  in  Eng- 
land. Here  is  what  the  Englishmen  themselves  say  in  their  advertisements, 
clipped  by  the  Chicago  Inter-Ocean  from  the  Yorkshire  Post  of  Nov.  7,  1890. 
The  Post  is  published  at  Leeds,  the  central  city  of  English  woollen  manufactures: 

WANTED — For  Christ  Church  Schools,  ex-P.  T.  as  assistant  master; 
Churchman;  salary,  ^"45.  Apply  Vicar,  High  Harrowgate. 

ASSISTANT  MASTER  (ex-P.  T.)  WANTED — After  Christmas;  must  be  com- 
petent to  teach  drawing  and  good  disciplinarian.  Churchman.  Salary,  ^50 
per  annum ;  might  increase  this  by  taking  night  school.  Send  copies  of  three 
testimonials,  giving  full  particulars,  to  Vicar,  Christ  Church,  Wakefield. 

The  Vicar  of  High  Harrowgate  will  pay  the  princely  sum  of  $225  per  year 
for  a  teacher  in  the  Christ  Church  School;  the  Vicar  of  Wakefield  will  pay 
$250,  but  in  this  case  it  is  necessary  that  the  teacher  should  be  something  of  an 
artist  as  well  as  "  a  good  disciplinarian."  The  lady  assistants  in  our  city 
schools  who  begin  on  $350  and  have  a  clear  prospect  of  $800  a  year  before 
them,  can  give  thanks  that  they  teach  in  American  and  not  in  English  schools. 

Let  us  see  what  labor  in  the  trades  is  worth : 

PLUMBERS  WANTED  IN  LIVERPOOL;  wages  8^d  per  hour;  six  months* 
work  guaranteed  to  efficient  plumbers.  Address  Plumber,  care  Meek,  Thomas 
&  Co.,  Liverpool. 

This  is  17  cents  an  hour,  $1.70  for  ten  hours'  work.  Our  American  plumbers, 
who  demand  $4  for  eight  hours'  work,  can  .give  thanks  that  they  do  not  work  in 
free  trade  England.  . 

Or  let  u^  consider  this : 

WANTED  —  STABLE  HELP;  good  experience  necessary ;  knowledge  of  team 
work  preferred ;  must  have  lived  in  good  private  stables;  salary  205.  Apply 
by  letter  only.  H.  Blakey,  The  Stables,  Oakwood,  Shadwell  Lane,  Moor- 
Allerton. 

That  is  to  say,  a  thoroughly  experienced  hostler  can  earn  the  sum  of  $4 
per  week  in  England,  and,  presumably,  without  board.  The  presumption  is 
confirmed  by  this  advertisement : 

WANTED — GARDEN  LABORER — Married;  no  family;  wife  to  attend  to 
bothies;  195  per  week;  cottage  found.  For  particulars  apply  to  R.  Keightley, 
Deighton  Grove,  York. 

Here  is  a  demand  for  the  skilled  labor  of  a  gardener  and  the  unskilled  labor 
of  his  wife  for  $3.75  per  week  and  the  rent  of  a  cottage  thrown  in.  Let  us  thank 
God  that  no  skilled  labor  in  America  is  under  such  dire  pressure  as  this. 

Let  us  see  how  our  friends,  "  the  hired  help,"  fare  in  England. 

AN  EXPERIENCED  PERSON,  not  over  35,  wanted,  to  assist  with  the  linen 
and  sewing,  and  have  charge  of  the  Nurses'  Home,  under  the  direction  of  the 
lady  superintendent;  wages  £20  per  annum.  Personal  application  preferred,  to 
the  lady  superintendent,  Infirmary,  Bradford. 

This  is  $100  a  year  for  a  very  superior  person,  a  lady  qualified  to  superin- 
tend nurses.  The  clumsiest  "  Biddy "  in  the  most  economical  of  American 
families  would  not  accept  such  a  pittance. 

But  here  is  another  offer  : 

USEFUL  MAID  WANTED — Good  sewer,  little  dressmaking,  willing  to  assist 
butler  occasionally;  £18.  County  Agency,  Knaresbro. 


This  is  $90  a  year  for  a  woman  who  can  do  all  the  plain  sewing  of  the 
family,  assist  in  its  dressmaking,  and  help  the  butler  to  wait  at  table.  Such  a 
person  would  be  considered  very  cheap  at  $300  a  year  in  Chicago. 

Here  is  another: 

REQUIRED  FOR  LONDON,  a  thoroughly  competent  and  very  strong  house 
kitchenmaid;  wages  ,£14;  washing  paid;  three  other  servants  kept,  all  from 
Yorkshire;  fare  paid.  Apply  Miss  Earles,  5  Chester  Place,  Hyde  Park  Square, 
London,  W. 

This  is  $70  a  year  for  a  very  strong  and  skilful  kitchenmaid,  and  the  in- 
ducement, "  washing  paid,"  leads  to  suspicion  that,  generally  speaking,  English 
servants  have  to  pay  for  their  own  washing  out  of  their  very  scanty  wages.  Let 
the  hired  girls  give  thanks  to-day  for  the  privilege  of  living  in  America. 

But  the  free-traders  will  tell  us  that  while  wages  are  very  low  in  England 
the  prices  of  what  labor  buys  are  correspondingly  low. 

The  free-traders  are  wrong,  as  usual. 

The  very  lowest  price  they  can  find  advertised  for  overcoats  in  the  York- 
shire Post,  published  in  the  heart  of  the  woollen  district,  where  clothing  is 
cheapest,  is  $5.  It  not  seldom  happens  that  in  our  columns  overcoats  are  ad- 
vertised at  $5 ;  we  have  published  advertisements  of  these  garments  for  less 
than  $5.  The  lowest  price  advertised  for  pantaloons  in  English  newspapers  is 
$2.12  ;  the  price  can  be  duplicated  in  any  clothing  store  in  Chicago.  We  might 
multiply  evidence  from  the  columns  of  the  English  press  in  proof  that  furniture 
is  cheaper  here  than  in  England,  that  medium  grades  of  clothing  are  as  cheap, 
that  many  groceries  are  as  cheap,  that  the  average  cost  of  living  is  not  much 
greater,  and  that  incomes  are  vastly  greater.  But  we  have  said  enough  to  give 
cause  for  thanksgiving  that  America  is  not  as  England  is. 


HERE  IS  CHEAPNESS. 
Low  WAGES  AND  LIVING  OF  OUR  EUROPEAN  COMPETITORS. 

The  "  House  Industry  "  in  Germany  as  reported  by  the  United  States 
Commercial  Agent  at  Mayence. 

The  State  Department  at  Washington  issued  in  1890  an  interesting  report 
on  the  manufacturing  business  carried  on  in  the  homes  of  the  workers  in 
Germany,  carefully  prepared  by  Commercial  Agent  James  H.  Smith,  who 
was  stationed  at  Mayence,  and  based  on  a  publication  by  the  German  Society 
for  Social  Politics. 

It  is  of  great  interest  in  this  country,  because  many  of  the  goods  thus  pro- 
duced are  sold  here.  It  is  of  special  interest  at  this  time  because  the  German 
Government  and  certain  New  York  agents  of  German  houses  are  doing  their 
utmost  to  get  their  goods  in  here  at  lower  duties. 

It  appears  that  fully  350,000  people  in  Germany  are  employed  by  merchants 
or  manufacturers  to  produce  goods  in  their  homes,  by  hand  and  by  simple 
machinery.  Different  kinds  of  goods  are  made  in  different  districts,  but  they 
embrace  most  kinds  that  are  produced  in  our  own  country  factories,  such  as 
linen  and  cotton  goods,  hosiery,  woollens,  toys,  silk  goods,  tools,  scythes,  cutlery, 
small  iron  ware,  wickerwork,  crocheting,  embroidery,  shoemaking,  the  manu- 
facture of  clothing,  clocks,  musical  instruments,  cigars,  etc.  Indeed  in  thirty  of 
the  leading  branches  of  industry  in  Germany,  more  than  10  per  cent  of  the 
work  is  done  in  the  homes  of  the  workers. 

The  figures  given  show  the  largest  number  of  persons  employed  in  house 
industry  to  be  in  the  following  branches  of  industry:  (i)  Silk  and  velvet  weav- 
ing, (2)  cotton  spinning,  (3)  sewing,  (4)  linen  weaving,  (5)  hosiery  making,  (6) 
making  of  wearing  apparel,  (7)  wool  weaving,  (8)  weaving  of  mixed  goods  —  each 
of  which  has  more  than  20,000  workers. 

Tables  are  given  showing  the  numbers  of  men,  women  and  children  engaged 
in  all  these  industries  and  the  proportions  of  women,  young  children  and  aged 
people  at  large. 

53 


Then  come  the  following  important  facts  as  to  hours  of  labor,  wages,  style 
of  living,  and  the  food,  health  and  morals  of  the  workers : 

HOURS  OF  LABOR. 

The  hours  of  labor  in  the  house  industry  are,  in  many  instances,  excessively 
long.  The  Thuringian  wood  carvers  sit  at  their  work  all  day  and  late  into  the 
night.  The  slate  makers  work  eighteen  hours  a  day.  The  basket  makers  in 
Upper  Franconia  and  Coburg  rise  in  summer  at  half-past  four  and  in  winter  as 
soon  as  it  becomes  gray,  and  work  in  the  height  of  summer  until  half-past  eight 
at  night,  and  in  winter  by  lamp-light  until  late  at  night.  Workers  in  meerschaum 
at  Ruhla  work  generally  fifteen  or  sixteen  hours  a  day  in  summer,  usually  from 
four  in  the  morning  until  eight  at  night,  and  in  winter  from  five  in  the  morning 
until  six  at  night.  The  makers  of  musical  instruments  at  Markneukirchen  and 
Klingenthal  work  twelve  hours  a  day,  exclusive  of  the  pauses  for  rest  and  meals. 
The  makers  of  harmonicas  in  Upper  and  Lower  Sachsenberg  and  other  villages 
of  the  Klingenthal  district  are  at  their  work  by  five  in  the  morning  and  seldom 
quit  it  before  eight  at  night ;  an  hour  at  mid-day  (often  only  half  an  hour),  is  the 
only  pause  they  make,  and  their  breakfasts  and  suppers  are  eaten  while  at  work. 
The  hand  weavers  of  Saxony,  who  work  at  home,  labor  from  fourteen  to  fifteen 
hours  a  day,  while  weavers  in  the  factories  work  only  eleven  or  twelve  hours  a  day, 
with  a  pause  of  one  hour  at  noon  and  one  of  fifteen  to  twenty  minutes  in  the 
forenoon  and  afternoon  respectively.  The  nail  makers  in  the  Taunus  Mountains 
work  over  twelve  hours  a  day  at  severe  labor.  In  making  network  the  women 
sit  at  their  work  from  six  o'clock  in  the  morning  until  at  least  ten  at  night,  with 
a  short  respite  at  noon  only,  when  they  take  their  scanty  dinner. 

WAGES. 

The  wages  paid  in  house  industry  are  very  paltry  and  allow  the  recipients 
only  a  miserable  existence.  In  the  Crefeld  district  the  average  wage  per  loom 
in  1872  amounted  to  $126.37;  in  1877  to  only  $108.  In  1867  a  weaver  of  velvet 
of  one  color  earned  on  an  average  $2.38  a  week;  in  1872,  $2.85  a  week;  and  in 
1877,  only  $2.14.  In  the  Gladbach  district  the  weekly  wages  on  December  i, 
1875,  and  April  i,  1878,  of  a  successful  velvet  weaver,  amounted  to  only  $3.80 
and  $2.14  respectively;  of  a  skillful  silk  weaver  to  $3.57  and  $2.14  respectively; 
of  less  skillful  workmen  to  $2.85  and  $1.42,  and  $2.61  and  $1.42  respectively.  A 
swordmaker  earned  at  Solingen  in  1877,  weekly,  $3.10;  a  polisher,  $3.33 ;  but 
each  had,  on  an  average,  three  months  of  unemployed  time  in  the  year.  At 
Remscheid  wages  were  much  higher. 

In  the  Thuringian  house  industry  the  earnings  of  the  toy  makers  in  the 
Sonneberg  district  average  as  follows :  Of  an  embosser,  aided  by  wife  and  chil- 
dren, to  $2.85  or  $3.57;  of  a  tuner,  to  $1.66  and  $2.14;  of  a  female  worker  on 
doll-baby  hair,  80  to  95  cents;  of  a  slate-maker,  to  $1.42;  of  a  paper-box  maker, 
to  71  cents.  Handsome  wages! 

At  Ruhla  the  makers  of  meerschaum  pipes  earn,  when  they  have  full  em- 
ployment, the  best  of  them,  $4.28  to  $5  a  week;  ordinary  workmen,  $2.85  ;  and 
poor  workmen,  but  $1.90  to  $2.14. 

The  earnings  of  a  family  of  wood  carvers  in  the  high  country  of  the  Eisen- 
ach district,  consisting  of  five  members,  including  two  children  going  to  school, 
is  said  to  be  $3.57  to  $3.80  a  week,  when  they  have  full  employment  and  are  of 
the  better  class  of  workers.  Poor  carvers  hardly  make  enough  to  obtain  their 
daily  bread.  Cork  cutters  in  the  same  region  are  still  worse  paid,  a  whole 
family  of  them  receiving  only  $1.19  to  $1.90  a  week.  Among  the  makers  of 
willow  ware  in  Upper  Franconia  and  Coburg,  strong  men  who  have  the  rough 
work  with  whole  willows  to  perform,  earn  only  $2.85  to  $3.57  a  week.  Ordinary 
workmen  manage  to  make  only  a  miserable  livelihood.  The  makers  of  musical 
instruments  at  Klingenthal  and  Markneukirchen  get  much  better  wages  than 
the  people  just  named.  In  Klingenthal  the  makers  of  the  different  parts  of  the 
harmonica  earn  weekly:  straighteners,  $i  to  $1.70;  polishers  and  tuners,  90 
cents  to  $3.57;  finger-board  makers,  $2.50  to  $3.75;  case  and  frame  makers, 
$2.38  to  $4.76;  women  making  bellows,  about  $1.25. 

In  the  making  of  textiles  the  wages  in  Saxony  for  house  industries  are  very 
poor  and  oftentimes  very  fluctuating.  In  the  year  1875  a  hand  weaver  of  fine 

54 


mull  earned  $2  a  week,  but  in  1877  only  $1.30.  In  the  factories  the  wages  are 
always  higher.  The  average  weekly  wages  in  the  Upper  Voigtland,  in  the 
vicinity  of  Oelsnitz,  of  curtain  weavers,  amounted  in  1881  to  only  $i.  In  1882 
these  curtain  weavers  made  from  $1.66  to  $2.14  a  week,  while  the  average  weekly 
wages  of  a  factory  weaver  of  ordinary  capacity  amounted  to  $1.73  a  week,  and 
of  weavers  at  the  Jacquard  looms  to  $3.09. 

The  weavers  in  the  Weilerthal  earn,  in  the  great  body  of  instances,  only 
$1.14  to  $1.71  a  week  on  the  average;  and  to  do  this  it  is  necessary  that  two 
persons  should  work,  one  of  them  from  early  morning  until  evening —  yea,  even 
into  the  night. 

HOMES  OF  THE  HOUSE  WORKERS. 

In  view  of  the  meagre  wages  they  receive,  the  homes  of  the  workers  in 
house  industry,  which  are  also  their  places  of  work,  must  necessarily  be  of  a 
wretched  character. 

The  places  of  abode  of  the  Sonneberg  toy  makers  consist,  generally,  of  one 
large  room  with  a  side  room,  the  first  of  which  has  to  answer  as  a  living-room 
and  a  v/ork-room.  It  has  to  be  heated  not  only  in  winter  but  in  summer  also, 
that  the  toys  which  are  laid  on  boards  before  the  stove  may  quickly  dry  ;  and 
on  the  stove,  water  is  kept  hot  all  the  time,  the  steam  from  which  escapes  into 
the  cooler  sleeping-room  and  adds  to  the  natural  dampness.  The  sleeping-vooms 
are  usually  so  small  that  there  is  room  enough  in  them  for  only  two  or  three 
beds  put  close  together,  upon  each  of  which  two,  and  often  three  or  four  persons 
sleep.  The  houses  are  overcrowded,  and  cleanliness  absent  from  them.  The 
slate-pencil  makers  work  in  very  small  rooms,  three  to  five  in  a  room,  with  the 
windows  closed  and  the  dust  from  the  stone  thick.  Match-makers  work,  also, 
in  utter  disregard  of  all  the  laws  of  health,  and  cook  their  food  on  the  same 
stoves  on  which  the  phosphorus  and  sulphur  are  prepared.  The  stench  in  these 
rooms  to  the  incomer  is  almost  unbearable.  Everything  in  the  house  —  human 
beings  and  articles — is  besmeared  with  phosphorus,  and  the  cracks  in  the  floors 
and  the  separations  between  the  boards  show  an  accumulation  of  match-heads, 
matches,  dust  from  phosphorus,  and  other  dirt,  while  children  of  tender  age  just 
old  enough  to  creep  over  the  floor,  can  be  seen  playing  in  it  all. 

In  the  Eisenach  hill  country  the  people  in  house  industry  live,  also,  in 
miserable  habitations.  They  live  and  work  in  houses  lightly  built,  in  rooms 
small  and  damp,  with  low  ceilings  for  the  most  part,  which  are  oftentimes  used 
to  sleep  in,  as  well  as  to  live  and  work  in.  The  beds  are  often  dirty,  and  several 
persons  frequently  sleep  together  in  one.  The  people  are  mostly  engaged  in 
making  corks  and  carving  in  wood.  Among  the  basket  makers  in  the  same 
region  a  room  which  serves  the  three-fold  use  of  living,  working  and  sleeping- 
room  is  the  rule.  It  has  generally  a  table,  a  bench,  two  chairs  and  two  beds  in 
it.  The  beds  are  of  straw,  ill-smelling,  with  no  sheeting  over  them.  The  walls 
of  the  room  are  plastered,  but  dirty,  and  the  floor  has  dirt  on  it  an  inch  thick. 
Then  they  have  a  kitchen,  in  which  they  keep  a  clothes-press  and  a  plain 
bureau. 

The  workers  in  tobacco  are  in  a  miserable  plight.  They  work  in  over- 
crowded cellars  and  garrets,  with  the  windows  kept  tightly  closed.  It  is  said 
that  they  sit  at  work  in  such  rooms  so  thick  together  that  when  one  will  go  out 
all  the  others  in  his  row  have  to  stand  up  and  lay  their  stools  on  the  work-table 
to  let  him  pass.  At  night  a  petroleum  lamp  gives  light,  and  heat  an  old  stove 
supplies.  Here  young  and  old  —  men  and  women,  boys  and  girls — sit  together 
and  work  their  lives  out  over  the  smokers'  "  weed." 

FOOD. 

When  habitations  are  so  bad  food  must  be  correspondingly  inferior.  It  is 
meanly  simple,  and  consists  chiefly  of  potatoes ;  it  is  potatoes  morning,  noon 
and  evening.  Chicory  coffee,  coffee-water,  bread,  butter,  cheese,  vegetables, 
sauerkraut,  peas,  beans,  rice,  beer,  and  milk  are  also  sometimes  taken.  Meat  is 
rarely  partaken  of.  In  Remscheid  the  people  in  house  industry  eat  meat  three 
times  a  week,  but  in  Schmalkalden  hardly  ever,  except  when  a  hog  has  been 
raised  by  the  family.  In  the  Weilerthal,  and  in  Markneukirchen  or  the  Kling- 
enthal,  it  is,  at  the  most,  only  once  or  twice  a  week  that  meat  is  had:  in  the 

55 


Taunus  only  on  Sundays  and  holidays.  In  the  Saxon  Voigtland  the  rate  of 
consumption  of  meat  has  been  put  for  1875  at  494  pfennigs  (u^  cents)  per 
head  of  the  population,  and  for  the  whole  Kingdom  of  Saxony  at  61.1  pfennigs 
(i$i  cents)  per  head. 

HEALTH. 

Of  course  the  conditions  above  set  forth  impair  the  physical  constitution. 
In  the  different  districts  the  number  of  men  found  unfit  for  military  duty  ranged 
from  30  to  56  in  each  100. 

MORALS. 

Illegitimate  births  are  usually  adopted  by  statisticians  as  tests  of  morals. 

Throughout  Germany  11.5  per  cent  of  all  the  children  born  from  1861  to 
1870  were  illegitimate  ;  from  1871  to  1880  only  8.9  per  cent;  but  in  the  town  of 
Voigtland,  where  house  industry  is  largely  carried  on,  14.6  per  cent  of  the  births 
from  1868  to  1870  were  illegitimate,  and  in  the  country  18.8  per  cent.  In  the 
Markneukirchen  district,  16  per  cent  of  the  children  born  from  1865  to  1870 
were  illegitimate,  and  in  the  Klingenthal  district  22.2  per  cent.  In  Thuringia 
the  people  are  quite  lax  in  their  morals.  The  foregoing  percentages  of  il- 
legitimacy are  very  much  larger  than  any  in  the  United  States. 

Now  the  question  is,  whether  American  workingmen  and  women  and 
children  will  consent  to  be  deprived  of  remunerative  work  that  enables  them  to 
live  in  decent  fashion,  by  the  free  importation  of  goods  made  by  people  ground 
down  and  degraded  as  above  set  forth. 

The  protective  tariff  is  the  only  thing  that  prevents, 


WHAT  THE    "SCRIPPS  LEAGUE"    WORKERS  SAW 
ABROAD. 

Fifty  American  working  men  and  women,  mostly  selected  by  trades  unions, 
visited  the  Paris  Exposition  and  the  factory  towns  of  Europe,  in  1889,  and  wrote 
accounts  of  their  observations  for  a  syndicate  of  American  newspapers.  In  the 
syndicate  were  several  free  trade  papers,  among  them  the  Boston  Globe.  Before 
many  of  the  letters  had  been  published,  it  became  obvious  that  the  facts  con- 
tained in  them  were  damaging  to  free  trade,  and  the  advocates  of  that  cause, 
notably  the  Globe,  ceased  to  print  the  letters. 

But  to  every  American  they  are  of  the  highest  value,  because  they  are  non- 
partisan  and  all  the  subjects  are  treated  from  the  workman's  standpoint.  Here 
are  a  few  extracts  : 

William  Delaney,  building  tradesman  : 

"  In  no  part  of  Europe  do  the  men  live  as  well  as  the  American  mechanic, 
nor  are  they  housed  and  clothed  as  well.  They  seldom  save  any  money." 

David  N.  Kendall,  woodworker : 

"  Only  in  a  very  few  places  can  a  workman  hope  to  own  a  house.  Workmen 
seem  to  be  satisfied  with  close  quarters.  Workmen  generally  get  along  from 
week  to  week,  and  do  not  seem  to  trouble  themselves  further." 

Robert  E.  Masters,  iron-moulder: 

"  I  found  the  English  iron-moulders  earning  on  the  average  $8.20  a  week. 
[He  gave  a  careful  statement  of  the  cost  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  showing  that 
it  was  as  high  or  higher  than  with  us.]  I  could  not  find  any  foundryman  who 
owned  his  own  home,  or  who  knew  of  any  one  who  did." 

A.  B.  Capron,  weaver : 

"  The  European  employee,  as  I  met  him,  was  seen  under  his  best  conditions. 
In  wages  he  was  guaranteed  a  certain  amount,  and  if  by  extra  exertions  he  could 
earn  over  the  guarantee  he  was  permitted  to  do  so,  but  the  American  working- 
man  on  the  same  plane  of  life  is  far  better  fixed  in  all  that  enters  into  the  great 
sum  of  existence  than  his  European  brother.  The  thing  that  pained  me  most 
was  the  too  plain  evidence  of  mastership  and  servitude  even  between  manager 

56 


and  employee.  The  self-respect  of  the  American  toiler  was  wanting  in  nearly 
every  instance.  The  greater  portion  of  the  help  employed  in  the  mills  I  have 
visited  are  females,  and  they  range  from  the  child  of  ten  or  twelve  years  to  the 
gray-haired  matron.  The  children  are  rather  puny,  and  the  mothers  are  gaunt, 
hungry-looking  creatures,  and  have  a  pallid  look  that  is  far  from  interesting. 
Their  working  clothes  would  not  bring  a  shilling  to  the  individual ;  they  work  in 
their  bare  feet  on  stone  floors,  and  their  heads  look  as  though  the  use  of  a  comb 
would  be  a  torture.  Bread  and  beer  seem  to  be  the  staple  articles  of  diet,  and 
it  is  a  common  practice  to  send  a  girl  child  of  about  the  size  of  the  can  she 
carries  for  the  beer  that  is  to  wash  down  the  bread.  How  the  bread  comes  to 
the  house  is  beyond  my  ken." 

Adrian  Dorin,  baker : 

"  Our  men  have  better  homes,  some  of  them  homes  of  their  own,  and  in 
Europe  you  will  find  few  bakers  who  have  homes  of  their  own.  The  American 
baker  is  getting  more  money  and  works  no  longer  than  the  European  baker. 
The  American  baker,  I  think,  lives  more  happily  and  is  much  better  off  in  every 
way." 

Archibald  S.  Davis,  painter  and  decorator : 

"  Butter  is  an  unknown  article  on  the  workingman's  table.  The  price  of 
provisions  in  the  Old  World  is  on  many  articles  much  dearer  than  in  America. 
In  my  opinion  the  American  workman  in  my  trade  is  better  fed,  better  paid, 
better  clothed  and  better  housed  than  his  European  brother." 

W.  T.  Lewis,  miner  : 

"  I  found  the  English  miners  earning  from  50  cents  to  $i  per  day,  and  the 
women  36  cents.  The  cost  of  living  for  necessaries  will  average  10  per  cent 
higher  than  in  the  United  States." 

A.  T.  Anderson,  tin-worker  : 

"  The  wages  of  the  American  tinner  are  from  50  to  100  per  cent  higher  than 
in  the  countries  visited.  The  foreign  mechanic  lives  cheaper  than  the  American 
because  he  eats  a  cheaper  kind  of  food.  The  variety  of  food  which  adorns  his 
table  is  very  limited  indeed.  Our  necessaries  are  his  luxuries.  On  the  whole, 
the  condition  of  the  working  people  of  the  Old  World  is  by  no  means  as  good 
as  of  the  same  class  here ;  and  if  the  American  workman  would  live  as  they  do, 
he  could  save  from  one-fourth  to  one-half  his  gross  earnings." 


"  Free  trade  between  nations  will  sooner  or  later  bring  the  price  of  labor  — 
wages  —  to  the  same  level  the  world  over,  and  that  level  will  be  the  lowest  figure 
to  which  tyranny  and  misgovernment  can  reduce  the  laborers  anywhere."  —  Prof. 
W.  D.  Wilson,  of  Cornell  University. 


A  NEW  DANGER. 

MILLIONS  OF  TEN  CENTS  A  DAY  WORKERS  READY  TO  RUN 
MACHINERY. 

Manufacturing  in  India  —  Another  Market  lost  to  England  —  The 
small  Cost  of  bringing  foreign  Goods  to  America  —  Official  State- 
ments of  Wages  in  the  Orient. 

{From  a  Speech  by  Albert  Clarke,  Secretary  of  the  Home  Market  Club,  at  Great 
Barrington,  Mass.,  August  if,  s8gf.] 

It  is  not  alone  the  cheap  labor  of  Europe  that  pur  wage  earners  would  have 
to  compete  with  if  protection  were  removed.  During  the  last  few  years  cotton 
manufacturing  has  been  a  growing  industry  in  Bombay.  About  $60,000,000  of 
British  capital  have  already  been  embarked  in  it,  and  as  capital  usually  goes 
wherever  it  can  be  most  profitably  employed,  I  see  no  reason  why  manufacturing 

57 


should  not  greatly  increase  in  the  oriental  countries.  Together  they  comprise  a 
population  of  700,000,000,  mostly  toilers,  who  are  as  docile,  ingenious,  plodding 
and  productive  workers  as  the  world  contains.  They  have  no  such  ideas  of 
civilization  as  we  have.  No  weekly  payments,  no  employers'  liability  laws,  no 
eight  hour  problems  trouble  capital  over  there.  Last  winter  the  Textile  Mercury 
of  Manchester,  England,  published  a  letter  from  Mr.  Will.  Clark,  formerly  of 
Bolton,  England,  who  is  employed  in  a  cotton  mill  in  Bengalore,  India,  in  which 
he  wrote :  — 

"  I  have  not  seen  a  white  face  since  October ;  all  here  are  black  as  night  and 
almost  naked.  We  work  from  light  to  dark.  Sundays,  too  (no  Factory  Act 
here),  and  we  only  stop  the  engine  a  half  hour  for  dinner.  Our  hands  only  get  on 
an  average  six  annas  per  day,  which  is  equal  to  five  pence." 

Commenting  upon  this,  the  Canadian  Manufacturer  of  February  20,  1891, 
thus  showed  the  effect  of  the  British  policy  which  is  now  beginning  to  be 
terribly  felt  at  home:  — 

Great  Britain  will  not  permit  India  to  levy  an  import  duty  upon  cotton 
\  goods  manufactured  in  Britain,  and  until  recently  Britain  supplied  about  all  the 
1  cotton  goods  consumed  in  India.  But  now  India  is  manufacturing  her  own 
cotton  goods  with  labor  costing  but  ten  cents  a  day,  and  the  British  laborers 
who  formerly  found  employment  in  making  cotton  goods  for  the  Indian  market 
are  in  idleness,  forming  a  contingent  of  that  submerged  tenth  of  Britain's  popu- 
lation so  graphically  described  by  General  Booth  in  his  "Darkest  England." 

China  and  Japan  are  also  introducing  cotton  machinery,  and  it  will  be  but  a 
few  years  before  they  will  supply  their  own  demands.  The  deft  hands  which 
make  their  marvelous  silks  and  pottery  can  certainly  run  any  kind  of  modern 
machinery  after  becoming  familiar  with  it,  and  with  that  machinery  and  the  Euro- 
pean and  American  capital  which  would  be  sure  to  flow  to  them  if  they  could  have 
free  access  to  the  markets  of  the  world,  it  would  be  but  a  few  years  longer  before 
they  would  or  easily  might  supply  the  people  of  all  countries  with  nearly  every 
form  of  manufactured  goods. 

Look  at  their  wages. 

The  U.  S.  Consular  Report  of  September,  1887,  shows  that  in  China  the 
current  wages  of  an  able  bodied  young  man,  with  board,  are  $12  per  annum. 

The  U.  S.  Consular  Report  for  December,  1884,  shows  that  in  Japan  male 
hands  are  paid  from  $8.60  to  $12.90  per  annum,  with  food  and  lodging,  and 
females  $6  per  annum. 

British  official  reports  give  the  wages  in  different  districts  of  British  India 
as  follows:  In  Delhi,  males  6  cents  a  day,  females  i}4  cents,  children  i  cent.  In 
Kurnal  the  highest  permanent  wage  is  50  cents  a  month.  In  Borat,  men  em- 
ployed by  the  year  get  80  to  100  pounds  of  grain  per  month  to  live  on  and  from 
44^  cents  to  $1.98  per  annum  in  wages.  In  Bombay  and  Madras  laborers  are 
paid  6  to  1 2  cents  a  day ;  by  the  year,  without  food,  60  cents  a  month :  with  food, 
22^5  cents  a  month. 

Now  the  practical  question  for  every  wage  earner  in  Massachusetts  and  in 
all  the  United  States  to  consider,  is,  How  long  could  the  present  rate  of  wages, 
or  anything  like  it,  be  maintained  in  this  country  if  the  goods  that  may  be 
easily  produced  by  those  foreign  toilers  could  be  brought  to  our  markets  free  of 
duty  ? 

The  ocean  is  no  longer  much  of  a  barrier.  The  cost  of  transportation  is  so 
low  that  Scotch  granite  and  Italian  marble  are  often  brought  over  as  ballast.  I 
made  an  investigation  and  published  the  figures  a  few  months  ago,  showing  that 
nearly  all  products  of  English  mills  are  brought  to  Boston  for  less  money  than 
it  costs  to  carry  the  products  of  Boston  factories  no  further  inland  than  Spring- 
field. 

Mr.  E.  A.  Hartshorn,  of  Troy,  stated  the  following  interesting  fact  in  an 
article  published  a  few  months  ago :  — 

A  four-masted  2900  ton  iron  sailing  vessel  recently  came  into  the  port  of 
New  York  laden  with  Asiatic  products,  having  made  the  voyage  from  Calcutta 
in  109  days.  Twenty-nine  men  at  fifty  cents  a  day,  costing  $1580.50,  or  fifty-four 
and  one-half  cents  a  ton,  had  sailed  the  great  ship  successfully  during  the  long 
voyage.  If  we  double  the  amount  paid  for  labor  to  cover  other  expenses,  the 
cost  of  the  trip  is  only  $1.09  per  ton,  or  less  than  six  cents  per  100  pounds. 

58 


Hence  it  will  be  seen  that  goods  are  being  carried  a  thousand  miles  by  sea  almost 
as  cheaply  as  a  dozen  miles  by  land,  and  a  mill  in  New  York  city  has  no  more 
advantage  in  freight  over  a  competing  mill  in  Calcutta  than  over  a  similar  mill 
in  Paterson,  New  Jersey. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  cotton  cloth  now  manufactured  in  Bombay  can 
be  transported  to  New  York  for  less  than  one  mill  a  yard.  It  is  made  on 
machinery  precisely  like  that  employed  in  British  and  American  mills.  The 
labor  cost  of  its  production  is  not  one-tenth  the  labor  cost  here.  There  is  no 
limit  to  its  production  but  the  world's  capacity  to  buy. 

When  our  "tariff  reform"  friends  are  confronted  with  these  facts,  they 
say,  "  Very  well,  wherever  goods  can  be  produced  the  cheapest,  that  is  the  place 
to  buy  them." 

And  when  asked  what  will  become  of  the  more  than  three  millions  of  pros- 
perous wage  earners  now  employed  in  American  mills  their  hard  answer  is,  "  Let 
them  do  something  else." 

Gentlemen,  a  political  party  which  espouses  such  a  cruel  policy  as  that 
merits  the  opposition  of  every  civilized  man  and  deserves  to  be  consigned  to 
everlasting  infamy  and  defeat. 


BRITISH  LABOR  AND  FREE  TRADE. 

A  remarkable  Letter  from  a  Trades  Union  Secretary —  The 
World's  Markets  Gone,  England  now  Needs  Protection. 

In  January,  1891,  the  Manchester  (Eng.)  Courier  printed  a  most  thoughtful 
and  courageous  letter  from  Mr.  William  V.  Jackson,  general  secretary  of  the 
National  Union  of  Paper  Mill  Workers  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  in  which 
is  the  following  able  review  of  the  industrial  situation,  opportunity  and  duty  in 
the  United  Kingdom :  — 

The  diminution  of  our  previously  profitable  husbandry,  especially  tillage, 
and  all  the  rural  industry  clustering  around  and  sustained  by  a  thriving  agricul- 
ture, has  driven  the  discharged  and  frozen-out  rural  workpeople  and  tradesmen 
into  the  large  towns  to  swell  the  crowds  of  competing  and  suffering  laborers 
there.  In  like  manner  the  transitions  which  have  taken  place  under  our  non- 
reciprocated  free  import  system,  suppressing  and  extinguishing,  after  a  long 
process  of  affliction,  a  variety  of  productive  industries,  has  had  a  like  effect. 
This  appears  to  be  going  on  unchecked  by  any  of  the  usual  devices  of  Nation- 
alist and  Democratic  communities,  out  of  deference  to  the  inexplicable  delusion 
of  so-called  free  trade,  or  the  exigencies  of  political  parties  unable  or  unwilling 
to  grapple  with  the  question. 

OUR  CONTROL  OF  THE  WORLD'S  MARKETS  GONE. 

We  have  no  longer  either  the  monopoly  of  improved  industrial  appliances, 
which  we  once  enjoyed,  nor  have  we  the  aggressive  trade  and  military  and  naval 
spirit  of  Pitt's  and  Nelson's  time,  so  that  we  do  not  now  command  the  slightest 
consideration  for  our  equitable  trade  interests  on  the  part  of  foreign  states. 
77/6'  consequence  is  that  they  are  either  compelling  us  to  work  more  cheaply,  through 
our  having  to  sacrifice  profit  to  pay  their  re-venue  duties,  or  they  are  restricting  and 
excluding  our  produce  upon  their  markets  by  raising  duties  to  a  protective 
standard. 

THEORETICAL  PREDICTIONS  FALSIFIED. 

We  have  thus  entirely  falsified,  in  our  late  experience,  the  doctrines  and 
the  predictions  of  the  commercial  doctrinaires  who  persuaded  the  country  into 
a  free  import  policy.  We  have  not  got  the  free  trade  promised.  There  is  no  such 
thing. 

HOSTILE  TARIFFS  MEAN  REDUCTION  OF  PROFIT  AND  WAGES  HERE. 

The  consumer  abroad  is  not  in  every  case  paying  the  duty  imposed  on  our 
produce,  but  we  are  compelled  to  sell  at  a  sacrifice  determined  by  the  duty,  and, 
lastly,  we  are  not  paying  for  our  imports  by  our  exports. 

59 


PAST  PROFITS  PAYING  PRESENT  CONSUMPTION. 

In  regard  to  the  last  point,  it  is  quite  clear  that  we  are  paying  for  these  with 
our  capital  previously  lent,  which  —  if  not  repudiated  —  comes  over  in  this  form. 
We  are  thus  robbing  the  principal  producers  of  the  country,  and  using  their 
capital  in  order  to  enrich  irresponsible  and  cosmopolitan  capitalists,  and  develop 
the  resources  of  foreign  and  hostile  states,  while  we  starve  and  congest  our  own. 
It  is  the  bounden  duty  of  trades  union  leaders  to  call  attention  to  these  things, 
and  to  be  able  to  consider  them  fearlessly  and  dispassionately. 

Secondly,  trades  unions,  in  recognizing  these  economic  factors  in  the  indus- 
trial problem,  have  now  to 

DISTINGUISH  BETWEEN  CAPITAL  AND  CAPITAL. 

They  have  to  distinguish  between  the  capital  embarked  in  the  same  boat  with 
labor  and  in  honest  and  responsible  partners Jiip  with  it — which  we  will  call 
national  and  productive  capital — and  the  capital  employed  in  distribution  and  in 
pure  speculation,  which  is  in  no  sense  either  national  or  responsible,  or  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  land  and  the  labor  of  England,  Ireland,  or  Scotland.  This  latter 
we  may  call  irresponsible  and  unproductive  capital,  so  far  as  our  commonwealth 
is  concerned.  On  these  grounds  I  wish  to  urge  two  practical  steps. 

ADAPT  COMMERCIAL  TREATIES  TO  PRESENT  TIMES. 

First,  let  the  expiry  of  commercial  treaties  (1892)  with  foreign  states  be 
made  the  occasion  of  reconsidering  our  trade  and  fiscal  policy,  with  a  view 
of  adapting  it  to  existing  facts,  and  not  of  abstract  dreams.  Let  us  look  to  the 
prosperity  of  Ireland,  Scotland  and  England  in  production,  and  in  some  grand 
imperial  trade  union  with  India  and  our  Colonies. 


WOOLLEN  MILL  OPERATIVES. 

Below  is  a  table  showing  the  average  weekly  rate  of  wages  paid  in  woollen 
factories  in  the  United  States  (Massachusetts),  France  (Rheims  District),  Eng- 
land (Yorkshire  District),  and  Germany  (Rhenish  District).  It  is  impossible 
to  doubt  the  accuracy  of  this  table,  as  Carroll  D.  Wright  is  responsible  for  the 
United  States  figures,  ex-Consul  Frisbie  for  those  of  France,  Robert  Giff en  for 
the  English,  and  ex-Consul  Du  Bois  for  those  of  Germany. 

England.  Germany. 

$5-76  $5.50 

2.40  2.50 

1. 80  1.90 

6.00  6.60 

5-00  5.25 

3.00  3.00 

i. 80  1.90 

2.50  2.40 

4.80  4.25 

3.48  4.00 

5.50  5.00 

3-35  3-oo 


TIN-PLATE  MAKERS. 

Comparison  of  their  wages  in  Wales  and  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Wilkins  Frick,  formerly  secretary  of  the  Wales  Tin-Plate  Makers'  Asso- 
ciation of  Swansea,  gives  the  rates  of  wages  paid  to  labor  in  tin-plate  making  in 
Wales  and  in  the  United  States,  as  follows: 

60 


Occupation  .         United  States  . 

WOOL  SORTERS. 
Men    -     So.  /i  -2 

France. 

#5-82 
2.70 
2.00 

6.50 

6.00 

3.00 

2.OO 
3-00 

4.67 
4.00 
6.25 

3-75 

Women   .... 

6.00 

Young  Persons     . 
SPINNERS. 
Men  (Overseers)  . 
Spinners  .... 

.      5-i2 

.       I2.OO 
Q  O^ 

\Vomen  .... 

6  18 

Young  Persons 
Piecers    .... 
WEAVERS. 
Men                   .     . 

4.81 
.       5.00 

8  « 

"Women   .... 

°oo 

7  4.S 

Mechanics    .     .     . 
Laborers      .     .     . 

.      13.40 
.         8.58 

English 

rates.  rates. 

Roller  and  catcher  (combined),  per  day     ...     $3.14  $8.05 

Doublers,  per  day 1.92  3.85 

Furnacemen,  per  day 1.75  3.50 

Opener,  per  day 52  1.75 

Shearer  and  assistants  (paid  for  product  of  four 

mills  in  both  countries),  total  earnings  per  day     10.13  32.00 

Ore  men,  per  week 7.20  25.00 

Boys,  rolling,  per  day 40  1.25 

Catching,  per  day 28  i.io 

Greasing,  per  day 20  .75 

Foreman  and  roll  turner,  per  week 14.40  25.00 

Mason,  bricklayer,  per  day 1.44  3.00 

Blacksmith,  per  day 1.32  2.75 

Millwright,  for  repairs 1.44  3.00 


WINDOW-GLASS  WORKERS. 

Table  of  wages  paid  in  Plank  Lane,  England,  and  in 
Pittsburgh,  America. 

Mr.  James  Campbell,  president  of  the  Window  Glass  Workers'  Association, 
furnishes  the  following  table  of  wages  at  two  principal  places  of  production  in 
free  trade  England  and  protective  America: 

Percentage 

Plank  Lane,        Pittsburgh,         American 
England. 

Assorters $6.72 

Cutters 5.28 

Teasers 6.84 

Coal  wheeler 5.36 

Master  teaser 8.46 

Lear  tender 2.88 

Wheel  turner 2.88 

Blacksmith 6.72 

Pot  maker 8.40 

Common  laborer 4.08 

Batch  mixer 5.76 

Blow  furnace  man 5.04 

Packer 5.76 

Clerk 2.40 

Clerk 3.60 

Clerk 


Pittsburgh, 

America. 

$25.00 

25.00 

1  2.60 

15.00 

23.62 

11-35 

13.30 

25.00 

25.00 

9.OO 


7.20 


I2.OO 
20.00 
12.00 
18.00 
25.00 


to  English. 

$372.02 
47348 
184.21 

279.85 
279.19 
394.09 
461.80 
372.02 
297.61 
220.58 
226.56 
238.09 
347.22 
500.00 
500.00 

347-22 


AN  ENGLISH  COMPARISON. 


And  how  Protection  Benefits  what  the  Free  Traders  Call  the  "  Un- 
protected" Industries. 

Reynold1  s  Newspaper,  an  English  workingmen's  organ,  of  March  29,  1891, 
contained  the  following  brief  comparison  of  English  and  American  wages  in 
some  of  the  leading  trades : 

"  The  contrast  in  the  payment  of  artisans  and  laborers  generally  between 
that  of  the  United  States  and  European  countries  is  very  marked.  Printers  in 
New  York  are  paid  543.  per  week,  painters  543.,  plumbers  625.,  tailors  585.,  shoe- 
makers 623.,  carpenters  443.,  masons  563.,  smiths  503.,  tinsmiths  503.,  and  bakers 
423.  It  may  be  said  that,  considering  the  cost  of  food,  these  wages  are  not  so 
out  of  proportion,  but  this  is  a  delusion." 

"  The  wage  paid  (in  the  United  States)  to  the  workingman  is  nearly  double, 
on  an  average,  that  paid  to  him  in  this  country." 

6r 


"  The  workingman  in  the  great  Republic  can  live  comfortably  on  the  same 
wage  as  the  workingman  in  this  country." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  several  of  the  industries  mentioned  are  what  free 
traders  in  this  country  speak  of  as  "unprotected" — such  as  smiths,  masons, 
etc.  But  really  their  protection  is  the  most  complete  of  any,  because  stone 
walls  and  brick  houses  cannot  be  imported,  and  men  do  not  go  abroad  to  get 
their  horses  shod  or  bread  baked,  and  the  wages  of  the  men  employed  in  these 
industries  are  gauged  by  standards  in  other  trades  near  by,  which  are  determined 
by  the  general  prosperity. 

But  nearly  all  agricultural  and  manufactured  products  are  subject  to  foreign 
competition.  Nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  a  cheap  labor  country, 
having  machinery  and  the  knowledge  of  its  use,  would  supply  the  market  of 
any  higher  wage  country,  in  the  absence  of  protection,  and  thus  deprive  its 
labor  of  employment  or  bring  its  wages  down. 

In  view  of  this  self-evident  truth,  how  can  any  American  wage  earner  vote 
for  Democratic  candidates,  when  the  policy  of  that  party,  as  repeatedly  de- 
clared in  its  platforms,  is  to  make  imports  free  ? 


WAGES  IN  MEXICO. 

A  California  paper  says  that  in  Mexico  stone  masons  and  brick-layers  get 
75  cents  a  day ;  hod-carriers  44  cents  a  day.  Laborers  receive  31  to  37  cents  a 
day.  These  wages  are  paid  in  a  debased  coinage,  so  the  rate  is  25  per  cent  less 
than  the  amounts  named,  the  bricklayer  and  mason  receiving  in  our  money 
about  57  cents  a  day.  [This  was  before  Mexico  adopted  the  gold  standard.] 

The  duty  on  imported  clothing  is  100  per  cent,  so  a  skilled  mechanic  could 
earn  a  suit  of  common  San  Francisco  clothes  in  one  hundred  days,  and  he  could 
then  devote  some  time  to  earning  food,  paying  rent,  clothing  his  family,  and  so  on. 

Under  the  wise  policies  of  President  Diaz,  manufacturing  has  increased  in 
Mexico  and  wages  have  advanced.  The  gold  standard  has  been  adopted,  and, 
therefore,  wages  are  not  reduced  one-half  by  cheap  money.  Most  of  the  rail- 
roads and  mines  and  some  of  the  factories  are  owned  by  Americans.  But 
labor  is  still  very  cheap  there.  Cheap  foreign  labor  under  American  guidance 
makes  protection  necessary  here. 


WHAT  MAKES  PAUPERS. 

Prof.  Richard  T.  Ely,  of  Johns  Hopkins  University,  discusses  pauperism  in 
an  interesting  article  in  the  North  American  Review,  from  which  the  following  is 
an  extract :  — 

"  Inquiry  was  made  at  the  Prison  Association  two  years  ago  as  to  the  chief  cause 
of  crime,  and  every  expert  in  criminal  studies  was  reported  to  have  replied,  '  bad 
homes  and  heredity.'  The  same  reply  may  be  given  as  to  the  causes  of  pauper- 
ism. In  London  Mr.  Charles  Booth  —  not  General  Booth  —  attributes  from  13 
to  14  per  cent  of  the  cases  to  intemperance.  There  are  others  who  attribute  a 
much  larger  percentage  of  pauperism  to  intemperance,  but  nearly  if  not  quite  al- 
ways a  minority.  Lack  of  employment,  or  involuntary  idleness,  is  a  more 
prominent  cause  of  pauperism,  and  undoubtedly  many  cases  of  intemperance 
may  be  traced  back  to  a  period  of  involuntary  idleness.  The  number  of  unem- 
ployed in  England  and  Wales  has  been  placed  at  six  million,  and  in  the  United 
States  at  over  one  million,  and  an  extremely  small  percentage  is  due  to  strikes  or 
lockouts.  Industrial  crises  are  a  chief  cause  of  modern  pauperism,  it  having 
been  observed  in  every  modern  nation  that  the  number  of  tramps  and  paupers 
increase  immensely  during  a  period  of  industrial  depression.  Many  men,  while 
seeking  work  during  these  periods,  fall  hopelessly  into  vagabondage  and  pau- 
perism, and  those  dependent  upon  them  are  thrown  upon  the  public." 

If  Prof.  Ely  had  not  been  a  theoretical  free  trader,  he  probably  would  have 
drawn  the  obvious  lesson  from  the  foregoing  that  the  way  to  avoid  industrial 
crises  in  this  country  is  to  oppose  general  reductions  of  the  tariff.  Adequate 
protection  against  foreign  goods  keeps  our  labor  employed.  Every  attempt  to 
lower  it  has  closed  mills  and  opened  soup  houses. 

62 


Free  trade  has  nearly  ruined  British  agriculture,  the  value  of  farms  and 
buildings  having  fallen  ,£800,000,000  since  1846.  This  has  driven  a  million  farm 
laborers  into  the  cities  and  towns  to  swell  the  armies  of  the  unemployed.  Sir 
Henry  Campbell-Bannerman,  the  present  Prime  Minister  of  Great  Britain,  said  in 
1903  that  30  per  cent  of  the  population  of  that  country  "  is  on  the  verge  of 
hunger."  This  is  because  the  free  entry  of  foreign  products  deprives  the  people 
of  the  opportunity  to  produce  for  themselves.  It  is  free  trade  or  low  duties, 
therefore,  that  makes  paupers. 


WAGES  IN  MASSACHUSETTS  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN. 

In  1897  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of  Statistics  of  Labor  published  an  elab- 
orate comparison  of  wages  in  Massachusetts  and  Great  Britain.  It  shows  that 
from  1860  to  1883  wages  here  were  75.4  per  cent,  higher  than  there,  in  88  indus- 
tries here  and  58  there.  In  1897  wages  in  Massachusetts  were  28.56  per  cent 
higher  than  they  were  in  1860  (they  are  now  10  per  cent  higher  still),  while  the 
advance  in  Britain  was  only  9.74  since  1872.  The  grand  result  of  the  compari- 
son is  that  wages  are  77  per  cent  higher  here  than  there  and  that  the  average 
cost  of  living  is  17.29  per  cent  higher  here  than  there,  although  it  is  much  better 
living  here, 

EUROPEAN  AND  AMERICAN  WAGES. 

\Neiv  York  Commercial^ 

It  is  a  fact  generally  known  that  the  American  workman  receives  the  highest 
wages  paid  in  any  country  in  the  world.  Some  statistics  recently  compiled  by 
the  Labor  Bureau  at  Washington  give  a  fair  idea  of  the  relative  welfare  of  the 
British,  French,  Belgian  and  American  workman  from  1870  to  1902.  The  rate 
given  is  the  average  per  day  : 

Great  United 

Britain.  Paris.  Liege.  States. 

1870 $1.30       $I.o6       #0.69$       $2.20 

1876 1.40^  1. 12  0.63  2.l8 

1886 1.39  i.  25!  0.63  2.47^ 

1896 1.49  1.33  o.66i  2.45! 

1902 1.45  1.34  0.65  2.50 

The  Labor  Bureau's  statistics  show  that  the  department-store  girls  of 
Chicago  average  $329  a  year,  which  is  more  than  is  earned  in  a  year,  even  on 
the  basis  of  300  working  days  a  year,  by  Belgian  brickalyers,  carpenters,  black- 
smiths, house  painters,  teamsters  or  laborers.  The  sum  is  also  larger  than  the 
amount  annually  earned  by  common  laborers  in  Great  Britain  or  France. 


APPENDIX  C. 
A  WORKING  PEOPLE'S  PARADISE. 


LETTERS  OF   A    BRITISH    FREE   TRADE   EDITOR    WHO  VISITED 
THIS  COUNTRY  IN  1893. 


Plain  Facts  and  Comparisons  with  his  own  Country. 


Few  letters  by  a  foreign  tourist  have  ever  been  written  from  this  country 
which  displayed  so  clear  an  insight  of  its  conditions  of  labor  and  living,  and 
which  have  attracted  so  much  attention  for  their  engaging  style,  their  candor 
and  fairness,  as  those  of  MR.  LASCELLES  CARR,  editor  of  the  Western  Mail,  of 
Cardiff,  Wales,  which  were  written  to  his  journal  in  the  spring  of  1893.  After 
he  had  visited  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  he  wrote  as  follows  of  what  he 
called 

"A  WORKING  PEOPLE'S  PARADISE." 

The  more  I  see  of  this  wonderful  country  and  the  further  my  inquiries  reach, 
the  more  satisfied  I  am  that  it  is  the  paradise  of  the  working  man,  and  especially 
of  the  working  woman.  Wages  are  high  and  the  cost  of  living  comparatively 
low.  The  margin  between  the  amount  of  money  necessary  for  a  bare  subsist- 
ence and  the  ordinary  wage-rate  is  larger  than  anywhere  else  in  the  world.  If  a 
working  man  and  his  wife  and  family  were  content  here  to  live  as  they  live  in 
England  they  could  save  money  very  rapidly.  But  they  are  not  so  content. 
Except  in  the  matter  of  house  accommodation,  their  circumstances  are  in  every 
respect  better  than  are  those  of  their  English  brethren — they  eat  better  and 
more  varied  food,  they  dress  better,  they  have  at  least  as  good  means  of  educa- 
tion and  other  sources  of  intellectual  and  social  recreation.  They  are  free  from 
any  sense  of  the  indignity  of  labor. 

Yesterday  evening  I  stood  at  a  ferry  in  Jersey  City  and  saw  the  work  girls 
trooping  over  in  the  boat  from  New  York.  The  crowd  was  composed  of  much 
the  same  social  elements  as  those  of  which  the  crowd  passing  over  Blackf riars 
Bridge  consists.  But,  oh !  what  a  difference  in  the  appearance  of  the  two  sets 
of  girls.  These  New  Jersey  girls  were  neatly  and  appropriately  dressed,  and 
not  one  of  them  but  wore  decent,  well-fitting,  and,  in  some  cases,  quite  elegant 
boots  and  shoes.  They  walked  and  spoke  and  in  every  way  behaved  themselves 
as  ladies.  Mind  you,  this  is  no  reflection  on  our  English  girls  ;  it  is  only  a  re- 
flection on  the  system  under  which  the  working  classes  are  fain  to  accept  such 
a  rate  of  wages  as  puts  neat  clothes  and  good  boots  and  the  elegance  and  pro- 
priety of  behavior  which  accompany  the  surroundings  of  well  paid  labor  beyond 
their  reach.  Men  and  women  here  all  seem  alike  prosperous,  respected  and  self- 
respecting. 

LETTER  FROM  PHILADELPHIA. 

I  have  several  times  alluded  to  the  condition  of  the  working  man  in  this 
country.  The  further  my  inquiries  extend  the  more  convinced  I  become  that 
the  real  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  in  this  country  a  workman  earns  nearly  twice 
as  much  as  he  would  in  England,  and  the  cost  of  his  living,  except  in  the  matter 
of  rent  and  clothing,  is  about  the  same.  Even  in  the  matter  of  clothing  the 
difference  is  not  great,  except  in  so  far  as  it  is  brought  about  by  the  general  use 
of  much  better  clothing  by  the  artisan  in  this  country  than  in  England.  As  for 
the  rate  of  wages  prevailing  here,  the  waiter  at  my  table  to-night  told  me  he  was 
an  Englishman  who  had  settled  in  America  for  ten  years.  His  earnings,  he  said, 
were  double -what  they  were  in  the  old  country,  and  whereas  his  wife,  a  fore- 

64 


woman  in  the  scarf  department  of  Messrs.  Morley,  in  London,  earned  253.  a 
week,  here  in  Philadelphia,  in  a  similar  capacity,  she  earned  $10  (over  6os.)  a 
week,  and  had  all  Saturday  and  one  other  afternoon  in  the  week  to  herself. 
What  nonsense  to  compare  the  conditions  of  this  family  with  that  of  an  ordin- 
ary waiter  in  England,  and  say  the  Philadelphia  man  is  worse  off  because  he 
has  to  pay  53.  a  week  more  rent.  It  is  true  he  does  pay  an  increased  rent 
here,  but  what  does  that  matter  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  lets  off  enough  of 
his  house  to  leave  him  rent  free  ?  Another  illustration  of  the  American  wage- 
rate  was  given  in  this  morning's  New  York  paper.  It  was  announced  that  the 
Philadelphia  Railway  had,  unsolicited,  raised  the  wages  of  the  men  working  on 
their  line.  The  porters  and  baggagemen  are  divided  into  three  classes.  The 
lowest  of  all  gets,  under  the  new  scale,  $45  a  month,  or  455.  a  week,  and  the 
highest  $65,  or  £3  53.,  a  week.  Compare  that  with  the  rates  of  pay  prevailing 
on  the  Great  Western  Railway.  He  would  be  a  lucky  porter  there  who  would 
get  half  the  money. 

LETTER  FROM  YOUNGSTOWN,  OHIO. 

Commencing  with  the  working  men,  it  appears  to  me  clear  that  their  stand- 
ard of  comfort  and  living  is  higher  than  it  is  amongst  the  corresponding  class 
in  Britain.  Here  a  very  large  proportion  of  them  live  in  their  own  freehold 
houses.  Land  is  no  cheaper  in  the  towns  of  America  than  it  is  in  Cardiff.  In- 
deed from  all  inquiries  made,  it  appears  to  be  nearly  twice  as  dear.  But,  being 
freehold,  there  are  no  restrictions  by  landlords  on  the  class  of  buildings  that 
should  be  erected,  and,  the  municipal  authorities  being  equally  complaisant,  a 
man  finds  that  he  can  get  a  plat  of  land  for  ^40  or  ^50,  and  then  for  another 
j£5o  to  ;£ioo  can  erect  a  commodious  six-roomed  house.  You  will  ask  how  it  is 
that  with  labor  so  dear  in  this  country  a  man  can  build  a  house  so  cheaply. 
The  answer  is  contained  in  the  one  word — wood.  In  Pittsburg  nine-tenths  of 
the  houses,  from  the  mansions  and  villas  of  the  middle  and  wealthiest  classes 
down  to  the  humblest  workman's  cottage,  are  built  of  "  lumber."  They  are 
called  "  frame  "  houses. 

As  regards  the  cost  of  food  in  the  United  States,  it  varies,  of  course,  in 
various  localities,  but,  generally  speaking,  it  may  be  said  to  be  as  cheap,  or 
if  anything  cheaper,  than  in  England. 

ALL  THIS  PUZZLES  A  FREE  TRADER. 
[Letter  from  Chicago^ 

Mixing  as  I  have  done  of  late  amongst  all  classes  of  Republican  workmen 
and  manufacturers  —  having  witnessed  the  phenomenal  prosperity  alike  of 
capital  and  labor —  informed  as  I  have  been  of  the  extent  and  strength  of  the 
enormous  interests  created  by  the  American  policy  of  protection,  I  cannot  help 
realizing  the  fact  that  those  of  our  English  people  are  living  in  a  fool's  paradise 
who  believe  that  the  result  of  the  recent  Democratic  victory  in  this  country,  al- 
though based  on  the  cry  of  Tariff  Reform,  will  result  in  any  measure  that  will 
open  the  markets  of  the  United  States  to  the  manufactured  goods  of  England 
or  the  Continent  of  Europe.  There  is  no  American  statesman  living  who  dare 
precipitate  such  a  national  economic  crisis.  It  would  not  be  reform  —  it  would 
be  revolution.  I  am,  as  you  know,  a  convinced  free  trader.  Protection  is  to  me 
an  economic  heresy,  the  fraud  and  folly  of  which  are  capable  of  mathematical 
demonstration  —  demonstration  as  absolutely  convincing  as  that  by  which  the 
solution  of  a  problem  in  Euclid  is  arrived  at.  And  yet,  throughout  the  length 
and  breadth  of  this  vast  continent,  one  is  almost  daily  brought  face  to  face  with 
solid,  indisputable  facts,  that  seem  to  give  the  lie  to  the  soundest  and  most  uni- 
versally accepted  axioms  of  political  economy.  Let  me  give  you  just  one 
example.  Under  the  shadow  of  a  stringent  protective  tariff  the  manufacture  of 
paper  was  commenced  in  the  United  States.  Paper  is  still  subject  to  a  heavy 
import  duty.  According  to  our  theories,  that  ought  to  enhance  its  price  to  the 
consumer  in  this  country.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  New  York  newspaper  pro- 
prietors buy  their  "news"  at  a  less  price  than  that  at  which  it  could  be  supplied 
to  them  in  London,  and  some  of  the  paper  mills  are  actually  exporting  paper  to 
the  old  country.  Unless  it  can  be  shown  that  this  paper  industry  would  have 
grown  up  without  the  aid  of  a  protective  tariff,  it  is  futile  —  nay,  it  is  an  im- 

6 


OF 

UN!V 


|  UNI 


pertinence  —  for  an  outsider  to  say  that  the  Americans  have  acted  unwisely  in 
taxing  themselves  for  a  few  years  in  order  to  establish  in  their  midst  a  great  in- 
dustry giving  occupation  to  a  great  quantity  of  highly  paid  labor.  And  it  seems 
to  me  that  this  set  of  facts  and  the  arguments  based  on  it  apply  to  many  of  the 
other  industries  which  are  assuming  such  colossal  proportions  throughout  the 
length  and  breadth  of  the  land. 


FOREIGN  LABOR  IN  MASSACHUSETTS. 

What  immigrants  do  after  they  come  to  Massachusetts  is  shown  by  statis- 
tics in  the  bulletin  issued  in  1906  by  Ghief  Pidgin  of  the  Bureau  of  Statistics  of 
Labor.  It  appears  that  nearly  one-half,  or  49.02  per  cent,  of  the  persons  em- 
ployed by  local  Governments  are  foreign  born  or  of  foreign  descent,  and  of  the 
common  laborers  in  the  State,  73.50  per  cent  are  foreigners.  Considering  all 
the  productive  industries  as  a  whole,  Chief  Pidgin  finds  that  more  than  three- 
fifths  of  the  persons  employed  are  foreigners.  He  finds  that  as  a  rule  the  immi- 
grants engage  in  manufacturing  activities.  This  class  takes  69.30  per  cent  of 
the  Irish  who  engage  in  productive  industries,  60.41  of  the  English,  44.95  of  the 
Canadians,  57.04  of  the  Germans,  43.36  of  the  Nova  Scotians,  53.89  of  the  Scot- 
tish, 48.53  of  the  Swedish,  51.29  of  the  Russians,  34.33  of  the  Italians,  40.85 
of  the  Portuguese,  59.80  of  the  Poles,  47.15  of  the  French  and  53.23  of  the 
Welsh.  Common  labor  does  not  seem  to  appeal  very  strongly  to  any  other  than 
those  coming  from  Italy,  Portugal,  Poland,  Ireland,  Wales,  Newfoundland, 
France  and  Canada,  Russians  have  the  highest  percentage  in  the  trades,  which 
is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  so  many  of  the  Jews  coming  from  Russia 
remain  true  to  traditions  and  start  into  business  here  on  a  small  scale.  In  the 
domestic  service  the  immigrants  from  Sweden,  Prince  Edward  Island,  Nova 
Scotia  and  Ireland  show  the  highest  representation. 

In  the  professional  rank  there  is  no  branch  so  foreign  in  its  composition  as 
that  of  religion.  More  than  half  of  those  engaged  in  religious  work  are  of  for- 
eign birth  or  descent;  one-third  of  the  artists  and  musicians,  more  than  two- 
fifths  of  those  engaged  in  amusement  enterprises,  and  a  quarter  or  more  of 
those  engaged  in  medicine,  education  and  science,  are  foreigners. 

In  some  branches  of  manufactures  the  preponderance  of  a  foreign  element 
is  almost  startling;  it  is  highest  in  the  worsted  goods  industry,  with  ninety-two 
foreigners  to  eight  natives  ;  next  comes  the  cotton  goods  industry,  with  ninety- 
one  foreigners  to  nine  natives.  Among  the  eighteen  principal  manufacturing 
branches  in  the  State  there  are  seven  in  which  the  proportion  of  foreigners  to 
the  total  number  of  employees  is  more  than  eighty  in  100,  these  being  carpetings, 
cotton  goods,  rubber  goods,  silk,  stone,  woollen  goods  and  worsted  goods.  Com- 
menting upon  these  figures,  the  report  says : 

"  It  is  evident  that  in  the  four  specified  industries  the  great  majority  of 
Massachusetts  immigrants  have  found  their  means  of  support,  and  the  question 
is  forcibly  presented  —  Is  not  our  industrial  prominence  due  to  this  influx  of 
willing  workers,  and  is  not  our  industrial  advancement  dependent  upon  a  still 
further  supply  ?  We  think  a  careful  consideration  of  the  preceding  tables  will 
convince  the  reader  that  the  industrial  assimilation  of  our  Massachusetts  immi- 
grants has  been  as  complete  as  could  reasonably  be  expected  when  we  recall  their 
previous  conditions,  their  comparatively  short  residence  in  the  State,  their  un- 
familiarity  with  our  language  and  customs,  and  the  inherent  difficulty  of  secur- 
ing industrial  opportunities  in  a  State  so  thickly  settled  as  our  own." 

They  work  here  under  American  and  not  under  foreign  conditions,  and  they 
soon  take  pride  in  being  Americans.  And  they  are  needed  because  there  is  a 
scarcity  of  labor  all  over  this  country. 


OUR  LARGE  COMPETING  IMPORTS. 

People  who  think  that  the  protective  policy  prevents  a  large  foreign  trade 
do  not  understand  the  subject. 

During  the  fiscal  year  ended  June  30,  1906,  our  total  exports  of  domestic 
merchandise  amounted  to  $i  ,7 1 7,952,382  and  our  total  imports  were  $i  ,226,563,843 

66 


—  making  a  total  foreign  trade  of  $2,970,428,343.  This  was  nearly  335  millions 
greater  than  the  year  before  and  it  was  $1,347,533,772  greater  than  in  1896,  the 
most  normal  year  under  the  Wilson-Gorman  tariff.  When  a  foreign  trade  nearly 
doubles  in  ten  years,  the  tariff  is  far  from  "prohibitory,"  as  it  is  so  often  called 
by  the  opponents  of  protection. 

The  Dingley  tariff  is  carefully  framed  so  as  to  admit  free  of  duty  articles 
that  are  not  produced  in  sufficient  quantities  at  home.  In  1906,  44.81  per  cent  of 
all  our  imports,  which  is  nearly  one  half,  were  admitted  duty  free. 

It  is  also  liberal  enough  towards  competing  imports,  and,  by  reason  of  the 
great  prosperity  which  it  promotes,  that  class  of  imports  is  enormous  and  steadily 
increasing,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  following  table: 

PRINCIPAL  ARTICLES  IMPORTED. 

1906-  1905- 

Animals $3,914,422  $3,337,454 

Breadstuff's 4>5I3>66;  6,557,347 

Chemicals,  etc 74,452,664  64,779,559 

Coffee 73,256,134  84,654,062 

Cotton 10,879,592  9,914,750 

Cotton,  manufactures 63,043,322  48,919,936 

Earthen,  stone  ware 12,877,528  11,659,723 

Fibres 39,360,290  38,118,071 

Fibres,  manufactures 51, 437, 581  40,125,406 

Fruits  and  nuts 28,915,747  25,937,456 

Furs  and  manufactures 21,855,682  18,306,302 

Hides  and  skins 83,882,167  64,764,146 

Iron  and  steel  and  manufactures     .     .  29,053,987  23,510,164 

Jewelry,  etc 42,120,715  35>°65,iS8 

Lead  and  manufactures  of 4,302,307  3,904,839 

Leather  and  manufactures 15,140,926  11,666,233 

Paper  and  manufactures 6,998,761  5,623,638 

Silk 54,080,504  61,040,053 

Silk,  manufactures 32,910,560  32,614,540 

Spirits,  wines,  etc J9,257,59O  17,652,323 

Sugar 85,460,088  97,645,449 

Tobacco  and  manufactures    ....  26,590,706  22,145,846 

Wood  and  manufactures 36,528,563  29,564,323 

Wool 39.068,372  46,225,558 

Wool,  manufactures  of 23,080,683  17,893,663 

The  table  embraces  a  few  articles  that  are  admitted  without  duty,  but  most 
of  them  are  dutiable  because  they  compete  directly  with  domestic  products. 
Take  cotton  manufactures  as  an  example:  if  the  63  million  dollars'  worth  im- 
ported had  been  manufactured  here,  as  they  might  have  been,  the  work  would 
have  given  employment  to  more  people  than  are  now  employed  in  the  cotton 
mills  of  Fall  River,  New  Bedford  and  Lawrence  combined. 

Mr.  George  W.  Russell  of  Lynn,  formerly  superintendent  in  a  shoe  factory 
and  a  careful  student  of  tariff  questions  from  the  standpoint  of  labor,  contends 
that  the  Dingley  duties  are  not  high  enough  to  afford  adequate  protection  and 
that  there  is  a  great  deal  more  occasion  to  revise  upwards  than  downwards.  In 
a  communication  to  the  Boston  Daily  Advertiser  he  says: 

"We  imported  last  year  more  than  $600,000,000  in  competing  products.  This 
would  support  a  population  nearly  as  large  as  the  population  of  New  England  as 
well  as  the  people  of  New  England  are  supported.  When  we  realize  what  an 
increase  our  home  market  would  have  if  these  imports  were  produced  at  home, 
we  see  the  absolute  folly  of  increasing  these  imports  by  a  downward  revision  of 
our  present  tariff.  When  the  Dingley  tariff  is  revised  downwards  it  will  be  re- 
vised by  free  traders,  who  want  to  help  foreign  labor  at  the  expense  of  American 
labor.  The  advocates  of  protection  to  American  labor  will  never  do  this. 

"  The  advocates  of  revision  say  '  The  changed  conditions  necessitate  a  down- 
ward revision  of  the  tariff.' 

"  Directly  the  opposite  is  true.  Since  the  Dingley  tariff  was  adopted  in  1897, 
our  wages  in  all  lines  of  production  have  largely  increased,  both  in  the  aggregate 

67 


and  in  per  cent  to  individuals,  while  in  the  countries  from  which  our  imports 
come,  wages  have  remained  nearly  stationery.  Of  course  this  necessitates  a 
higher  tariff  instead  of  allowing  a  lower  one.  Consul  McNally,  stationed  at 
Liege,  in  a  late  communication,  says  that  he  is  often  asked  by  Belgian  manu- 
facturers as  to  the  probability  of  a  reduction  in  the  American  tariff,  on  the 
articles  they  are  now  shipping  to  the  United  States. 

"He  says':  'They  are  elated  with  the  merest  rumors  of  a  reduction,  and  it 
would  not  have  to  be  a  substantial  one  to  permit  them  to  stock  the  American 
market  with  their  products,  made  by  employees  working  for  a  moiety  of  Ameri- 
can wages.'  The  talk  about  revising  the  tariff  downward  by  protectionists  is 
the  merest  vapor." 


68 


APPENDIX  D. 

A  TARIFF  REFORMER'S  WATERLOO. 

BY  SOCRATES  SMITH. 

His  head  wuz  full  er  theories ;  he  talked  'em  by  the  job ; 

His  speech  w'en  shelled  was  one  part  corn  an'  ninety-nine  parts  cob. 

It  sounded  purty;  some  the  boys  they  said  'twas  jest  immense; 

"The  sound's  all  right,"  sez  I  to  them,  "but  where  in  time's  the  sense?" 

He  called  purtection  "robbery,"  like  all  the  Cobden  school, 
He  said  free  trade  wuz  righteousness,  the  modern  golden  rule. 
"  Is't  right  ter  rob  your  wife  and  kids,"  sez  I  ter  him,  "  is't  right 
For  formers  to  git  our  work  while  we  must  starve  or  fight?" 

"It's  sound  economy,"  sez  he,  "to  let  the  cheapest  sell." 
Sez  I,  "  My  friend,  that  barb'rous  rule  would  drag  us  down  to  hell. 
Ter  purtect  yer  home  and  famberly  may  be  a  deadly  sin  — 
But  them's  jest  the  kind  er  sinners  thet  St.  Peter  passes  in." 

"  Free  trade  'ud  save  fer  you,"  sez  he,  "  on  food,  an'  cloe's  an'  rent." 
Sez  I,  "  Meat's  dear  't  a  cent  a  pound  'f  ye  haven't  got  no  cent. 
Free  trade  it  robs  yer  wallet  an'  steals  yer  meat  an'  corn, 
An'  offers  ye  big  bargain  sales,  w'en  all  yer  money's  gone." 

I  ast  him,  "  Wouldn't  a  pauper  find  it  purty  middlin'  hard 
To  be  a  dude  with  trouserin's  at  thirteen  cents  a  yard? 
We'd  wear  di'mon'  studs  fer  buttons  if  they  sol'  'em  fer  a  nfckei, 
But  if  we  had  no  money  we'd  be  in  the  same  ol'  pickle." 

"  Free  trade  will  usher  in,"  sez  he,  "  the  gran'  mellenial  age 
Foretol'  by  seers  an'  prophets  ez  the  worl's  gret  heritage." 
"Oh,  w'en  the  big  mellenium  comes  'twill  be  all  right,"  sez  I, 
"W'en  our  rivers  flow  'ith  honey  an'  our  shade  trees  bloom  'ith  pie; 

W'en  the  angels  drop  down  manna  from  the  bendin'  firmerment. 
An'  we  hoi'  our  han's  an'  take  it  an'  don't  have  to  pay  a  cent ; 
W'en  food  drops  in  our  open  jaws  w'ile  loafin'  in  the  shade 
W'y  then  'twill  be  a  bully  time  to  interduce  free  trade." 


TRUSTS  AND  THE  TARIFF. 


WHY  REDUCTION  OF  DUTIES  WOULD  BE  NO  REMEDY) 
FOR  EVILS. 


Relative    Value  of  Home  and  Foreign  Markets. 


Some  people  think  that  the  tariff  is  "  the  mother  of  trusts,"  that  the  main 
object  of  trusts  is  to  destroy  competition,  that  the  abolition  of  protection  on 
trust-made  articles  would  bring  down  prices,  and  that  if  it  were  not  for  trusts 
and  the  tariff,  goods  would  not  be  sent  abroad  and  sold  at  lower  prices  than  they 
are  sold  for  at  home.  In  fact  these  are  Democratic  war  cries  but  all  of  them 
are  mistakes. 

All  political  economists  now  recognize  the  fact  that  industrial  combinations, 
called  trusts,  have  come  as  a  natural  evolution  of  industry,  just  as  the  small 
corporation  came  when  business  had  grown  too  large  and  complex  for  individuals 
and  firms.  Prof.  W.  G.  Sumner  of  Yale  University,  one  of  the  most  eminent 
free  traders  in  this  country,  who  has  never  lost  an  opportunity  to  assail  protec- 
tion, says  : 

"  Trusts,  department  stores,  railroad  consolidations,  bank  unions,  are  cases 
of  a  general  development  in  the  mode  of  industrial  organization.  All  branches 
of  industry  fall  into  it.  ...  It  was  the  discoveries  and  inventions  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  especially  in  the  fields  of  transportation  and  the  transmission  of 
intelligence,  which  made  it  possible,  and  then  profitable,  to  organize  industry  on 
a  more  comprehensive  scale." 

Here  is  not  a  word  about  the  tariff  as  a  possible  cause.  Further  on  he  sug- 
gested the  protective  tariff  as  a  possible  aggravation  of  the  evil  of  monopoly 
which  is  supposed  to  be  incident  to  trusts,  but  when  they  are  not  monopolies 
this  objection  could  not  apply. 

No  trust  in  this  country  is  a  monopoly.  Every  one  has  domestic  competi- 
tion, which  is  increasing,  The  two  which  come  the  nearest  to  monopoly  are  the 
Standard  Oil  Company  and  the  anthracite  coal  combination,  but  neither  of  them 
has  any  protection  from  the  tariff  —  hard  coal  and  petroleum  and  its  products 
being  in  the  free  list.  This,  and  the  fact  that  trusts  flourish  as  well  in  England 
as  here,  proves  conclusively  that  they  do  not  depend  upon  the  tariff  and  that 
monopoly  is  approximated  as  well  without  protection  as  with  it. 

In  February,  1902,  the  United  States  Industrial  Commission  (which  was 
composed  of  five  senators,  five  representatives,  and  nine  appointees  by  the  Presi- 
dent, both  of  the  leading  parties  and  all  sections  of  the  country  being  repre- 
sented) closed  its  labors  of  three  years  and  sent  its  reports  to  Congress  in  nine- 
teen volumes,  aggregating  seventeen  thousand  pages.  They  present  an  epitome 
of  the  progress  and  latest  status  of  all  the  great  industries  and  discuss  the  latest 
problems.  The  subject  which  received  the  most  attention  was  Trusts,  and  to 
make  its  investigations  more  complete  the  Commission  sent  an  agent  abroad, 
who  found  numerous  trusts  in  all  European  countries,  many  of  them  longer  es- 
tablished than  any  in  this  country.  Concerning  trusts  and  the  tariff,  the  report 
says  (Vol.  XIX,  pp.  630,  631) : 

"  The  removal  of  the  tariff,  then,  will  not  abolish  combinations  unless  it 
abolishes  the  industry.  The  domestic  competitors  of  combinations  might  be 
largely  cut  off  by  tariff  reductions  or  removal,  and  the  combination  survive  with 
moderate  profits,  and  yet  be  forced  to  sell  its  products  to  domestic  customers  at 
much  lower  prices.  But  this  sharpening  of  "foreign  competition  by  the  removal 
of  the  tariff  would,  beyond  any  doubt,  lead  American  combinations  in  some 

70 


cases  to  enter  into  international  combinations.  Already  we  have  the  thread  in- 
dustry of  England  and  the  United  States,  indeed,  the  thread  industry  of  the 
world,  largely  in  the  hands  of  an  international  combination.  The  borax  trade 
is  also  organized  internationally,  and  there  have  been  efforts  to  bring  about  an 
international  iron  and  steel  combination.  In  Europe  many  combinations  have 
crossed  national  boundaries.  The  advocates  of  lowering  or  removing  the  tariff 
in  any  line  of  industry  should  inquire  carefully  whether  its  effect  might  be  to 
produce  an  international  combination,  and  if  so  whether  such  an  international 
trust  would  be  desirable.  The  possible  effect  upon  wages  of  a  reduction  or  re- 
moval of  duties  must  also  be  considered  and  the  further  possibility  of  admitting 
to  this  country  the  surplus  stocks  of  European  manufacturers,  at  rates  so  low  as 
to  seriously  cripple  our  home  manufactures.  If  our  manufacturers  extend  their 
foreign  markets  by  selling  at  low  rates  abroad,  they  but  follow  the  example  of 
European  manufacturers,  who  for  years  have  disposed  of  surplus  stocks  in  this 
country  so  as  to  keep  their  factories  going  to  their  full  capacity.  What  can  be 
gained  by  helping  foreign  trusts  to  hurt  domestic  trusts  is  not  apparent." 

So  the  Commission  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  way  to  control  trusts  is 
to  enforce  the  anti-trust  law  of  1890  (enacted  by  a  Republican  Congress),  to 
strengthen  the  interstate  commerce  law  and  to  enact  laws  for  greater  publicity 
and  to  gain  federal  supervision  through  the  power  of  taxation,  but  not  to  attack 
them  through  the  tariff,  for  that  would  be  futile  and  harmful. 

As  to  prices  at  home  and  abroad,  the  Commission  said : 

"  From  such  information  as  came  to  the  Industrial  Commission  in  response 
to  its  inquiries  addressed  to  exporters,  it  is  certain  that  the  making  of  lower 
prices  abroad  than  at  home  has  been  greatly  exaggerated.  About  twenty  per 
cent  of  those  reporting  say  that  they  occasionally  make  such  prices  in  order  to 
meet  the  market  and  sell  their  goods.  But  eighty  per  cent  report  that  they  sell 
at  either  the  same  price  abroad  as  at  home,  or  at  higher  prices. 

"It  is  a  fact  well  known  in  the  commercial  world  that  exports  from  all  coun- 
tries are  often  sacrificed  in  foreign  markets  wholly  irrespective  of  tariffs  at 
home.  The  report  of  the  royal  commissioner  appointed  under  the  act  5  and  6 
Victoria,  chapter  99,  which  was  made  in  the  British  Parliament  in  1848,  con- 
tained the  following  statement  of  the  exploitation  of  foreign  markets  by  the 
manufacturers  of  that  country: 

'  I  believe  that  the  laboring  classes  generally  in  the  manufacturing  districts 
of  this  country,  and  especially  in  the  iron  and  coal  districts,  are  very  little  aware 
of  the  extent  to  which  they  are  often  indebted  for  being  employed  at  all  to  the 
immense  losses  which  their  employers  voluntarily  incur  in  bad  times  in  order  to 
destroy  foreign  competition  and  to  gain  and  keep  possession  of  foreign  markets. 

'  Authentic  instances  are  well  known  of  employers  having  at  such  times 
carried  on  their  works  at  a  loss  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  ^300,000  or 
,£400,000  in  the  course  of  as  many  years  [three  or  four]. 

'  The  large  capitalists  of  this  country  are  the  great  instruments  of  warfare  (if 
the  expression  may  be  allowed)  against  the  competing  capital  of  foreign  coun- 
tries, and  are  the  most  essential  instruments  now  remaining  by  which  our  manu- 
facturing supremacy  can  be  maintained.' 

"  The  practice  thus  reported  upon  more  than  fifty  years  ago  in  a  free-trade 
country  has  since  been  common  to  all  countries." 

Instead  of  protection  promoting  monopoly,  the  tendency  of  it  is  to  create 
domestic  competition.  It  has  built  up  many  industries  in  this  country  and  no 
sooner  has  one  company  become  profitable  than  others  have  been  formed.  The 
tariff  of  1890  made  a  tin  plate  industry  possible  here.  In  1904  it  was  saving 
consumers  $4,611,317  a  year  in  comparison  with  the  prices  of  the  last  five  years 
before  1890,  when  we  were  dependent  upon  foreign  supply,  and  it  is  giving 
profitable  employment  to  many  thousands  of  people.  When  the  so-called  steel 
trust  consolidated  most  of  the  plants,  those  not  consolidated  began  to  enlarge 
and  others  were  established.  The  managers  of  these  independent  plants,  and 
also  some  of  the  large  consumers  of  tin  plate,  testified  before  the  Industrial 
Commission  that  a  repeal  of  the  protective  duty  would  hurt  them  a  great  deal 
worse  than  it  would  hurt  the  trust.  Therefore,  if  we  would  safeguard  the 
people  against  monoply,  we  must  continue  to  encourage  home  competition  by 
protection. 

Most  of  the  evils  attributed  to  trusts,  as  well  as  to  the  tariff,  have  been 


caused  by  something  else.  The  advances  of  1902  in  the  prices  of  meat  and  iron 
and  steel,  as  well  as  of  many  other  articles,  were  due  to  the  law  of  supply  and 
demand.  No  producing  companies  then  curtailed  their  output ;  on  the  contrary, 
they  all  exerted  themselves  to  the  utmost  to  increase  it.  For  a  number  of  years 
past  the  beef  supply  has  been  growing  smaller,  owing  to  the  occupation  of 
millions  of  acres  of  grazing  land  for  general  farming,  and  the  population  has 
been  growing  larger  and  more  able  to  consume  meat.  Higher  prices  would 
have  been  inevitable  if  there  had  been  no  beef  trust.  In  fact,  though  the  trust 
may  have  been  guilty  of  extortion  and  of  trade  tyranny,  it  remains  to  be  proved 
that  the  packing  companies  have  not  actually  made  prices  lower  than  they 
otherwise  would  have  been,  by  the  economy  of  their  methods  and  by  the  great 
stimulus  which  they  have  given  to  the  producing  industry.  Whatever  abuses 
they  have  been  guilty  of  can  be  corrected  under  the  anti-trust  law,  and  the 
recent  pure  food  law,  and  not  through  the  tariff. 

The  great  demand  in  1902  for  iron  and  steel  was  due  not  only  to  general 
prosperity,  but  to  the  substitution  of  steel  for  wood  and  masonry.  It  was 
proved  before  the  Industrial  Commission  that  the  new  uses  of  steel  for  buildings, 
vessels,  bridges  and  cars  call  for  a  tonnage  greater  than  all  the  old  uses  com- 
bined, and  we  have  all  the  old  uses  still  and  many  of  them  much  enlarged.  The 
fact  that  all  our  steel  works  were  busy  and  many  of  them  enlarging,  and  that 
importations  were  increasing,  proves  the  demand,  and  the  fact  that  the  United 
States  steel  corporation  resisted  advances  in  prices  and  only  followed  all  its 
competitors,  proves  that  the  enhancement  was  not  due  to  monopoly.  There  is 
no  such  thing  as  so  regulating  human  affairs  that  prices  will  be  always  steady, 
but  what  friend  of  industry  does  not  prefer  activity  to  stagnation,  and  good 
prices  to  bad?  Trusts  and  all  other  creatures  within  our  own  land  can  be  and 
must  be  subject  to  public  control ;  but  if  we  repeal  protective  duties,  we  invite 
a  procession  of  foreign  evils,  entirely  beyond  our  control,  which  will  dislocate 
industry  and  oppress  labor  an  hundred  times  more  and  worse  than  all  our 
domestic  ills  combined. 


WHY  TARIFF  REDUCTION  WOULD  BE  NO  REMEDY. 

\From  the  New  York  Commercial  Advertiser^ 

We  extract  this  from  our  news  columns  at  the  beginning  of  September, 
1902: 

"  In  view  of  the  colossal  growth  of  trusts  and  combines  of  speculative  capi- 
talists and  consequent  concentration  of  capital  and  monopoly  of  industry  this 
congress  foresees  the  grave  danger  to  the  nation  and  the  toilers  of  dislocation  of 
trade,  stoppage  of  work  and  distress  of  wage-earners." 

All  right ;  then  why,  to  steal  Democratic  thunder,  don't  you  take  the  tariff 
off  the  things  the  trusts  make  and  sell  ?  Because  (alas  that  our  Cobden  friends 
should  show  that  our  borrowed  noise  is  only  stage  thunder)  there  is  no  tariff  to 
take  off.  The  trusts  and  combines  referred  to  are  English  trusts  and  combines, 
the  congress  was  an  assemblage  of  English  trades  unions,  and  the  resolution 
quoted  above  was  introduced  by  the  London  Dock,  Wharf  and  Riverside  Union. 
What  then  becomes  of  the  discovery  made  by  President  Roosevelt's  critics  that 
his  talk  of  regulating  the  trusts  is  all  buncombe  because  he  does  not  tell  the 
American  Congress  to  smash  them  by  taking  the  tariff  off  the  goods  they  make  ? 
We  give  it  up.  The  question  savors  too  much  of  a  conundrum  in  the  familiar 
form:  Why  is  an  American  trust  unlike  an  English  trust?  Because  one 
flourishes  with  a  tariff  and  the  other  attains  colossal  growth  without  a  tariff. 


THOUGHTLESS  AND  IMPRACTICABLE. 

\Boston  Transcript,  —  Independent^ 

Many  newspapers  and  many  speakers  we  observe  treat  the  suggestion  of 
wiping  off  the  protection  on  all  goods  made  by  trusts  and  combinations  as  if 

72 


trusts  and  combinations  would  alone  be  affected.  This  is  the  glib  suggestion 
of  men  who  cannot  or  will  not  realize  the  facts  of  the  industrial  situation,  not 
alone  in  the  United  States  but  in  the  world.  Wherever  there  is  a  country  with 
capital  and  industry,  there  is  found  the  combination  of  corporations  shifting 
over  from  competition  to  union.  Such  combinations  exist  in  free-trade  England 
and  in  protective  France  and  Germany. 

If  the  United  States  should  remove  all  the  duties  on  goods  made  in  this 
country  by  trusts  or  combinations,  it  would  simply  throw  open  its  home  market 
to  the  combinations  of  Europe. 

Nor  is  it  practicable  to  arrange  a  tariff  which  shall  take  the  protection  off 
goods  made  by  a  combination  and  keep  it  on  the  same  goods  made  by  an  indi- 
vidual. You  cannot  prostrate  A,  B  and  C,  who  operate  in  a  combination,  and 
leave  D,  who  is  an  individual  manufacturer,  unaffected.  Moreover,  as  very 
large  sums  of  money  are  loaned  to  combinations,  anything  that  prostrates  them 
must  seriously  affect  banking  capital,  to  the  great  loss  or  inconvenience  of  all 
lines  of  business.  Trusts  and  combinations  can  be  regulated  by  a  Federal  law 
and  Federal  supervision,  as  suggested  by  President  Roosevelt. 


RELATIVE  VALUE  OF  HOME  AND  FOREIGN 
MARKETS. 

Hon.  Theobold  Otjen,  member  of  Congress  from  Milwaukee,  who  was  also 
a  member  of  the  Industrial  Commission,  thus  states  the  relative  value  of  home 
and  foreign  markets  for  the  great  army  of  producers  in  the  United  States: 

"  The  productive  energies  of  the  people  of  this  country  last  year  amounted 
to  $20,660,000,000.  Of  this  vast  sum  $1,460,000,000  found  a  market  abroad, 
while  $19,200,000,000  was  consumed  or  taken  in  our  home  market.  In  other 
words,  for  every  dollar  of  the  productive  energy  of  our  people  which  found  a 
market  abroad  more  than  $14  was  taken  in  the  home  market.  Good  business 
sense  would  dictate  a  policy  which  will  not  be  to  the  injury  of  the  $14  market. 
It  should  be  our  endeavor  to  extend  our  $i  market  by  every  means  in  our  power, 
but  this  should  not  be  done  at  the  sacrifice  of  our  greater  market,  the  $14 
market.  There  is  the  tariff  issue  in  a  nutshell.  Level-headed  Americans,  be 
they  business  men  or  workingmen,  are  not  likely  to  join  the  shouters  for  tariff 
tinkering  if  they  are  in  possession  of  these  statistics  and  are  willing  to  take  the 
time  to  reflect  upon  what  these  statistics  mean." 

In  1902  an  economic  magazine  in  New  York  contained  the  following  para- 
graph, of  interest  to  all  classes  but  of  immense  interest  to  Labor: 

"  The  only  gain  to  the  nation  in  foreign  trade,  of  course,  is  the  profits.  The 
total  exports  and  imports  for  1901  were  $2,310,428,573.  Ten  per  cent  profit  on 
that  amount  would  be  only  $231,042,857,  or  less  than  one-seventh  of  the  loss  to 
the  nation  of  a  twenty-five-cents-a-day  reduction  in  wages.  The  loss  to  the 
nation  of  such  a  step  would  be  equal  to  sinking  to  the  bottom  of  the  sea  every  dol- 
lar's worth  of  our  exports  for  1901.  Indeed,  if  we  could  increase  our  foreign 
trade  forty  per  cent  by  reducing  all  workers  five  cents  a  day,  the  loss  to  the 
nation  would  be  nearly  twenty  millions  a  year  greater  than  the  gain.  This  does 
not  mean  that  we  ought  not  to  have  foreign  trade  or  seek  for  it.  What  it  does 
mean,  however,  is  that  foreign  trade  should  always  be  the  incident  and  outgrowth 
of  diversified  home  industry,  and  that  the  public  policy  of  the  nation  should 
never  favor  the  promotion  of  foreign  trade  at  any  sacrifice,  however  small,  of 
domestic  industry ;  and,  above  all,  by  any  lowering  of  wages  and  curtailment  of 
home  consumption." 


CONCLUSIONS. 

The  foregoing  articles  prove:  (i)  that  trusts  are  not  caused  by  tariffs;  (2) 
that  as  tariffs  must  apply  to  all  alike,  reducing  duties  will  hurt  the  smaller  com- 
panies that  compete  with  the  trusts  more  than  the  trusts  themselves  ;  (3)  that 
making  lower  prices  abroad  than  at  home  is  a  practice  as  old  as  commerce  and 

73 


due  to  neither  trusts  nor  tariffs ;  and  (4)  that  tariff  reduction  will  endanger  em- 
ployment and  wages  and  thus  hurt  vastly  more  than  it  will  help. 

The  way  for  all  toilers  and  producers  in  this  country  to  preserve  its  prosperity, 
and  make  the  most  of  their  industry  and  savings,  is  to  vote  for  Republican  can- 
didates for  Presidential  electors  and  representatives  in  Congress  and  send  to  the 
legislatures  men  who  will  vote  for  Republican  candidates  for  the  United  States 
Senate.  This  is  the  lesson  of  experience,  the  logical  conclusion  from  all  the 
foregoing  facts  and  the  practical  sense  of  those  who  prefer  business  to  politics. 


74 


APPENDIX   E. 

WOULD  RECIPROCITY  HELP  AMERICAN 
SHOE  WORKERS? 


FROM  THE  LYNN  CENTRAL  LABOR  UNION'S  PROGRAMME,  IS- 
SUED FOR  THE  MASSACHUSETTS  STATE  BRANCH  OF  THE 
AMERICAN  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR  CONVENTION,  1904. 


The  duty  on  imported  shoes  is  25  per  cent.  If  it  were  repealed  or  reduced, 
would  not  some  of  the  low  wage  countries,  all  of  which  now  have  American  shoe 
machinery,  compete  with  us  and  would  not  our  manufacturers  make  it  an  excuse 
for  reducing  wages  ?  Let  us  see  : 

COMPARISON  OF  DAILY  WAGES  OF  SEVERAL  CLASSES  OF  SHOE  WORKERS. 

Canada.  England.  France.        Massachusetts. 

Cutters $1.50  $1.30  $1-35  $2.40 

Lasters 2.00  1.34  1.60  2.65 

Stitchers 1.49  1.05  1.25  2.28 

Heelers 1.42  1.22  .77  3.72 

Edge  Setters     ....  1.67  3.69 

Finishers 1.73  1.30  1.06  3.11 

In  1894  the  weekly  wages  of  journeymen  shoemakers  in  Germany  ranged 
from  $1.66  in  Breslau  to  $5.23  in  Bremen,  and  in  other  places  they  were  from 
$2.50  to  $3.50.  That  is,  they  were  little  more  for  a  week  than  similar  workmen 
in  America  get  for  a  day.  A  consular  report  says  that  in  Berlin  the  average 
earnings  per  year  in  the  different  factories  are,  for  men,  $142.80  to  $214.20;  for 
women,  $47.60  to  $119.00,  and  for  youths  of  both  sexes,  from  $47.60  to  $117.10. 
Doubtless  they  are  somewhat  higher  now,  but  they  are  still  very  low  compared 
with  earnings  in  America. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  American  workman  turns  out  a  greater  product  in 
the  same  time  than  any  foreign  workman.  As  a  rule  this  is  true,  but  the 
official  reports  from  which  the  above  table  was  compiled  show  that  foreign  opera- 
tives of  the  same  class  work  more  hours  per  week  than  those  in  Massachusetts 
—  for  example,  59  in  England,  60  in  Canada,  and  60  to  72  in  France,  as  against 
58  in  Massachusetts.  Probably  the  longer  time  abroad  nearly  makes  up  for  the 
slower  speed. 

If  it  should  be  allowed  that  the  weekly  product  of  the  American  workman 
is  greater  by  20  per  cent  than  that  of  his  foreign  competitors,  the  labor  cost 
here  would  still  be  more  than  50  per  cent  greater  than  in  Canada,  90  per  cent 
greater  than  in  England,  and  95  per  cent  greater  than  in  France.  This  would 
give  those  countries  a  dangerous  advantage  in  competition. 

We  are  gaining  foreign  markets  without  reciprocity.  Our  exports  of  boots 
and  shoes  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1904,  were  valued  at  $7,238,940,  as 
against  $1,708,224  seven  years  ago,  when  the  present  tariff  was  enacted. 

And  yet  about  40  times  as  many  of  our  boots  and  shoes  are  sold  at  home 
as  abroad,  and  the  home  market  grows  faster  than  our  foreign  market.  What 
should  we  gain  by  exchanging  it  for  them?  Reciprocity  might  for  a  time  help 
merchants  and  shippers,  but  for  working  people  it  would  be  a  delusion  and  a 
snare. 

CHARLES  O.  WHIDDEN,  President  Joint  Council,  No.  4, 

B.  &  S.  W.  U.,  Lynn,  Mass. 
JOHN  R.  RONALD,  Secretary-Treasurer  Joint  Council,  No.  4, 

B.  &  S.  W.  U.,  Lynn,  Mass. 

ALBERT  M.  HARLOW,  Local  32,  B.  £  S.  W.  U.,  Lynn,  Mass. 
75 


SINGLE  TARIFF  OR  DUAL  TARIFF  —  WHICH  ? 
BY  THE  HON.  JAMES  T.  MCCLEARY, 

Representative  of  the  Second  Minnesota  District  in  Congress ;  Member  of  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee. 

[Copied  by  permission  from  the  American  Monthly  Review  of  Reviews,  April, 

1906.} 

Last  October,  a  meeting  of  prominent  German  exporters  was  held  in  Berlin 
to  discuss  American  tariff  conditions.  It  was  a  secret  meeting,  and  its  proceed- 
ings were  never  published.  But  the  speech  of  the  chairman  was  issued  for  con- 
fidential circulation,  and  copies  of  it  have  found  their  way  to  this  country. 
The  speech  may  later  be  published  in  full.  It  would  make  interesting  reading 
for  our  people.  Only  one  sentence  of  the  speech  will  be  quoted  here.  After 
referring  to  the  American  market,  its  enormous  value  and  the  great  care  with 
which  it  is  guarded  by  our  laws,  the  chairman  made  this  very  significant  and 
suggestive  statement :  "  But  with  a  government  that  can  be  changed  every  four 
years,  it  is  equally  an  easy  matter  to  change  the  tariff  laws  and  customs  regula- 
tions." Change  them  how?  Through  what  agency?  The  chairman's  statement 
gives  special  significance  to  the  announcement  in  the  press  reports  from  Berlin 
that  the  German  Government  extends  to  the  United  States  its  lowest  tariff  rates 
under  its  new  law  for  only  a  limited  time  —  namely,  until  June  30,  1907  —  simply 
long  enough  "to  afford  time  to  conclude  more  permanent  arrangements." 

Why  cannot  the  "more  permanent  arrangements"  be  concluded  sooner,  if 
at  all?  Why  wait  until  the  middle  of  next  year?  What  "change"  related  to  this 
matter  can  possibly  take  place  in  the  meantime?  It  is  obvious  that  into  the 
Congressional  campaign  this  fall  will  be  projected  the  question  of  the  tariff, 
especially  that  phase  of  it  involving  the  relative  merits  of  single  and  dual  tariffs. 
To  decide  wisely  in  this  "government  of  the  people"  it  is  vitally  important  that 
every  American  citizen  seek  the  fullest  possible  information.  During  the  com- 
ing months  much  will  be  heard  about  "maximum  and  minimum  rates,"  "autono- 
mous and  conventional  tariffs,"  and  such  things.  To  contribute  something  to- 
ward a  righteous  conclusion  on  a  momentous  question  is  the  purpose  of  this 
article. 

No  SUCH  THING  AS  INTERNATIONAL  FREE  TRADE. 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  free  trade  among  nations,  —  that  is,  there  is  no 
nation  in  the  world  that  admits  free  of  duty  all  articles  of  foreign  production. 
Almost  every  nation,  however,  admits  certain  classes  of  foreign  articles  duty-free, 
the  enumeration  of  such  articles  in  the  tariff  law  constituting  its  "free-list." 
For  instance,  in  the  calendar  year  1905  the  United  States  admitted  into  this 
country  absolutely  free  of  duty  foreign  goods  to  the  value  of  $530,464,135. 

On  the  other  hand,  every  country  charges  duties  on  certain  classes  of  im- 
ported articles.  Thus,  in  its  fiscal  year  ending  March  31,  1904,  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  raised  from  duties  on  imports  the  enor- 
mous sum  of  ^33,921,323  sterling,  or  about  $169,000,000.  Having  a  population 
of  about  forty  millions,  her  customs  collections  amounted  to  about  $4.25  per 
capita. 

During  our  corresponding  fiscal  year,  ending  June  30,  1904,  the  United 
States  collected  from  duties  on  imports  $261,274,565.  Our  population  then 
being  over  eighty  millions,  we  raised  from  tariff  duties  only  about  $3.25  per 
capita  or  a  dollar  less  per  capita  than  the  United  Kingdom. 

From  this  will  appear  the  absurdity  of  saying  that  the  United  Kingdom  has 
free  trade,  or  even  low  rates  of  duty  compared  with  ours. 

PROTECTIVE  AND  NON-PROTECTIVE  TARIFFS. 

In  both  the  United  States  and  the  United  Kingdom,  then,  duties  on  imports 
constitute  the  chief  source  of  national  revenue.  The  difference  in  the  tariff 
policies  of  the  two  countries  is  really  found  in  the  articles  each  puts  on  its  "  duti- 
able" list  and  on  its  "free"  list.  In  this  country,  we  lay  the  duties  on  articles 
such  as  we  ourselves  do  or  can  produce  economically  in  sufficient  quantities  to 

76 


supply  our  own  market,  —  that  is,  on  such  articles  as  compete  in  our  market 
with  our  own  products.  Non-competing  articles  we  admit  free  of  duty.  In  the 
United  Kingdom,  the  policy  is  exactly  the  reverse  of  ours.  There,  duties  are 
laid  on  non-competing  articles,  and  nearly  all  competing  articles  are  admitted 
duty-free.  Thus,  tea,  which  is  not  produced  in  either  country,  is  on  our  free  list 
and  on  Great  Britain's  dutiable  list;  while  steel,  which  is  produced  in  both 
countries,  is  on  our  dutiable  list  and  on  her  free  list.  In  other  words,  each  of 
these  countries  admits  free  the  articles  that  the  other  makes  dutiable. 

Countries  which,  like  the  United  States,  lay  their  duties  on  competing 
articles  are  said  to  have  a  "protective"  tariff;  while  countries  which,  like  the 
United  Kingdom,  lay  their  duties  on  non-competing  articles  are  said  to  have  a 
tariff  "for  revenue  only." 

Almost  every  nation  in  the  world  except  the  United  States  may  lay  duties 
on  exports  also.  But  export  duties  are  forbidden  by  our  Constitution. 

In  this  paper,  only  methods  of  laying  duties  on  imports  will  be  discussed. 
Although  each  country  has  certain  minor  peculiarities  in  its  mode  of  levying 
such  duties,  all  the  systems  fall  broadly  into  three  classes  or  groups. 

THE  AMERICAN,  OR  "SINGLE-TARIFF,"  SYSTEM. 

The  system  that  may  properly  be  considered  first,  because  it  is  in  use  in  the 
largest  number  of  countries,  maybe  called  the  American,  or  "single-tariff," 
system.  Under  this  system,  each  article  on  the  dutiable  list  bears  only  one  rate 
of  duty,  —  that  is,  the  duty  on  any  article  is  the  same  no  matter  what  country 
it  comes  from. 

Throughout  our  entire  national  history,  whatever  party  may  have  from  time 
to  time  made  the  tariff  law,  the  single-tariff  system  has,  in  the  main  and  with 
only  minor  exceptions,  been  the  one  followed  in  the  United  States.  In  the 
main,  this  system  has  also  been  the  one  obtaining  in  the  United  Kingdom,  and 
in  Sweden,  Norway,  Denmark,  Holland  and  Turkey,  in  Europe,  and  in  most  of 
the  countries  of  the  world  outside  of  Europe  except  Japan  and  Brazil. 

In  the  other  countries  of  Europe,  and  in  Japan  and  Brazil,  the  so-called 
"  dual-tariff "  system  is  in  vogue.  Of  these  dual  tariffs  there  are  two  general 
types,  one  of  which  may  be  called  the  French  type  and  the  other  the  German 
type. 

THE  FRENCH  TYPE  OF  DUAL  TARIFF. 

Under  the  French  type  of  dual  tariff  —  which  should,  perhaps,  be  called  the 
Spanish  type,  as  it  was  first  used  in  Spain  —  the  tariff  law  itself  definitely  pre- 
scribes two  sets  of  duties,  —  two  rates  on  each  article  on  the  dutiable  list,  except 
as  to  a  few  articles  on  which  there  may  for  special  reasons  be  only  one  rate. 
The  higher  rates  are  called  the  "maximum,"  and  the  lower  the  "minimum." 
The  important  thing  to  observe  is  that  both  the  maximum  and  the  minimum 
rates  are  fixed  and  determined  by  the  legislative  authority  of  the  country  using 
this  system.  Then,  through  the  executive  branch  of  the  government,  countries 
granting  concessions  in  their  tariff  rates  that  are  satisfactory  to  the  country 
having  this  French  type,  or  which  have  a  "  most  favored  nation"  treaty  with  it, 
are  granted  its  minimum  rates.  All  other  countries  are  required  to  pay  its 
maximum  rates,  except  that  concessions  may  be  granted  as  to  part  of  the  imports 
from  any  country. 

The  French  type  of  dual  tariff  is  in  vogue  in  France,  Spain,  Portugal  and 
Greece,  and  in  Brazil.  Until  less  than  fifty  years  ago,  France  used  the  single- 
tariff  system.  But  in  1860,  France  entered  into  a  treaty  with  the  United  King- 
dom under  which  each  country  granted  the  other  reduced  rates  on  certain 
articles.  Thus  began  in  France  what  grew  to  be  a  system  of  dual  tariff  some- 
what like  the  German  type,  to  be  described  shortly.  In  1892,  however,  France 
abandoned  that  system  and  adopted  the  Spanish  method,  which  she  has  since 
maintained. 

THE  GERMAN  TYPE  OF  DUAL  TARIFF. 

Under  the  German  type  of  dual  tariff  there  is  only  one  set  of  tariff  duties 
prescribed  in  the  tariff  law  as  enacted  by  the  legislative  authority  of  the  coun- 
try,—  one  rate  on  each  article.  This  entire  set  of  schedules  is  therefore  called 
the  "  autonomous  "  tariff,  meaning  significantly  the  tariff  made  by  the  indepen- 

77 


dent  action  of  the  nation's  legislative  authority,  free  from  dictation  or  interven- 
tion by  any  other  country.  This  law  prescribes,  however,  rates  of  duty  which 
in  the  main  are  higher  than  are  needed,  or  even  desired  in  some  cases,  by  the 
country  enacting  it.  The  rates  are  thus  purposely  placed  high,  with  the  view  of 
their  being  reduced,  by  "  concessions,"  through  treaties  with  other  countries. 
The  set  of  duties  thus  arranged  by  treaty  or  convention  constitutes  what  is  aptly 
and  significantly  called  the  "  conventional  "  tariff. 

As  a  rule,  the  conventional  tariff  covers  only  a  part  of  the  items  in  the 
general,  or  autonomous,  tariff.  Thus,  in  the  new  German  tariff  law,  which  be- 
came operative  March  i,  there  are  946  sections,  but  to  only  243  of  these  do  the 
conventional  rates  apply. 

Under  this  system,  the  autonomous  tariff  is  avowedly  enacted  largely  as  a 
basis  for  "dickering"  with  other  countries  as  to  mutual  tariff  rates.  Inmost 
countries  having  this  system,  the  conventional  rates  must  be  ratified  by  the 
legislative  branch  before  becoming  operative. 

The  German  type  of  dual  tariff  is  in  vogue  in  Germany,  Russia,  Austria- 
Hungary,  Italy,  Belgium,  Switzerland,  Roumania  and  Servia,  and  in  Japan. 

SOME  GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS. 

It  may  be  remarked  in  passing  that  in  each  of  these  systems  slight  modifi- 
cations are  sometimes  made  for  special  reasons.  Scarcely  one  of  the  countries 
keeps  its  chosen  type  absolutely  unbroken.  Thus,  in  the  new  German  tariff  law 
there  is  a  minimum  fixed  in  the  law  itself  (after  the  French  type)  on  rye,  wheat 
and  spelt,  malting  barley  and  oats,  below  which  minimum  —  and  it  is  a  high  one 
—  the  duties  cannot  be  reduced  through  treaty.  And  France  has  occasionally, 
under  stress  of  tariff  wars,  reduced  by  treaty  (after  the  German  type)  certain 
rates  below  those  fixed  in  the  law  as  the  minimum. 

A  glance  at  the  map  of  Europe  will  show  that  each  of  these  systems  has,  in 
the  main,  its  own  section  of  the  continent.  Thus,  the  single-tariff  system  is  in 
use  in  northwestern  Europe  —  in  the  United  Kingdom,  Sweden,  Norway,  Den- 
mark and  Holland  —  with  Turkey  added.  The'French  type  of  dual  tariff  is  used 
in  southwestern  Europe — in  France,  Spain  and  Portugal  —  with  Greece  added. 
And  the  German  type  of  dual  tariff  is  in  use  in  central  Europe,  with  the  con- 
tiguous countries  in  the  southern  and  eastern  part  of  the  continent  added. 

Norway  has  been  placed  among  the  nations  having  the  single-tariff  system. 
And  this  is  correct  in  fact,  though  not  in  form.  Norway's  idea  is  unique,  and  is 
well  worthy  of  special  consideration.  Norway's  law  carries  two  rates  of  duty, 
after  the  French  system.  But,  unlike  France,  Norway  gives  to  every  country 
her  best  rates  of  duty,  unless  she  is  discriminated  against.  She  holds  in  reserve 
the  higher  rates  of  duty,  to  apply  to  the  goods  of  any  country  that  may  discrimi- 
nate against  the  goods  of  Norway. 

CHARACTERISTICS  OF  EACH  SYSTEM. 

The  single-tariff  system  is  built  on  the  principle  of  "  equal  opportunity  for 
all,  special  privileges  to  none."  Under  this  system,  the  goods  of  the  small- 
est country  are  admitted  on  exactly  the  same  terms  as  the  goods  of  the  largest 
country.  All  countries  are  treated  alike.  There  is  no  country  so  weak  that  it 
need  fear  being  discriminated  against ;  there  is  no  country  so  powerful  that  it 
can  compel  discrimination  in  its  favor.  Under  the  single-tariff  system,  every 
country  gets  "  a  square  deal." 

A  country  having  the  single-tariff  system  gives  freely  and  voluntarily  to 
every  country  the  "best  terms"  that  it  gives  to  any  country,  and  it  has  a  right 
to  demand  in  return  from  every  country  the  best  terms  that  are  given  to  any 
country.  And,  in  support  of  that  reasonable  demand  for  the  impartial  treat- 
ment which  it  freely  gives,  it  may  consistently  and  properly  enact  and  hold  in 
reserve  a  set  of  higher  duties,  as  does  Norway,  to  apply  to  the  goods  of  any 
country  which  discriminates  against  its  goods. 

Both  types  of  dual  tariff  are  built  on  the  principle  of  "giving  to  him  that 
hath  and  taking  from  him  tkat  hath  not."  Under  the  dual-tariff  system,  the 
powerful  are  given  what  they  want,  while  the  weak  must  be  satisfied  with  what 
they  can  get.  The  dual  tariff  is  based  on  power,  not  on  justice;  on  favor,  not 

78 


on  equity.  It  is  the  very  opposite  of  "  the  square  deal."  It  is  but  the  applica- 
tion among  nations  of  the  very  principle  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
are  fighting  in  the  form  of  dual  railway  rates  and  the  discriminations  shown 
therein. 

DUAL-TARIFF  SYSTEMS  PROVOKE  WAR. 

In  a  public  address  at  Pittsburg,  recently,  a  distinguished  gentleman 
from  Boston  advocated  what  he  chose  to  call  "  reciprocity."  In  neither  form 
nor  spirit  was  it  the  reciprocity  advocated  by  Elaine  and  practised  by  McKin- 
ley.  What  he  advocated  as  "  reciprocity  "  was  simply  and  only  the  German 
type  of  dual  tariff.  He  urged  his  views  on  the  ground  that  the  policy  advocated 
would  cultivate  international  peace  and  good-will,  something  that  everybody 
desires. 

The  plea  is  not  a  new  one.  It  is  probably  the  most  seductive  argument  in 
favor  of  so-called  "reciprocity."  The  very  word  "reciprocity"  has  an  attrac- 
tive and  persuasive  sound.  It  suggests  friendliness,  mutual  consideration, 
neighborly  kindness.  Even  the  dual  tariff,  if  advocated  as  "  reciprocity,"  may 
be  made  to  seem  attractive.  But  it  is  well  to  remember  in  this  connection  that 
the  only  real  tariff  wars  that  have  ever  taken  place  have  been  between  countries 
having  dual  tariffs.  Among  recent  examples  may  be  cited  the  tariff  wars 
between  Germany  and  Russia,  1893-94,  between  France  and  Switzerland, 
1892-95,  and  the  eleven-year  conflict  between  France  and  Italy  from  1888  till 
1899. 

The  reason  for  such  wars  is  not  hard  to  find.  A  nation  having  the  dual- 
tariff  system  stands  before  other  nations  with  a  whip  in  one  hand,  as  it  were, 
and  a  wisp  of  hay  in  the  other.  The  country  of  the  dual  tariff  virtually  says 
to  other  countries:  "  Give  me  what  I  want  and  I'll  give  you  something  good  — 
that  I  don't  want.  Deny  me  what  I  want  and  I'll  strike  you."  The  country  of 
the  dual  tariff  neither  needs  nor  desires  its  higher  rates  of  duty;  they  are  en- 
acted simply  as  a  club  to  be  held  over  the  heads  of  other  countries.  The  very 
attitude  of  such  a  country  is  a  challenge  to  conflict.  No  wonder  that  every  real 
tariff  war  in  history  has  been  between  countries  having  dual  tariffs. 

Conversely,  there  has  never  been  a  tariff  war  between  two  countries  having 
the  single-tariff  system.  Under  that  system  there  is  neither  necessity  nor 
opportunity  for  such  a  war. 

Whether  among  persons  or  among  nations,  there  is  nothing  so  provocative 
of  anger  and  resentment  as  "  showing  favors  "  to  some  that  are  not  accorded  to 
others.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  nothing  so  promotive  of  peace  and  good- 
will as  evenhanded  justice  to  all. 


79 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


24-   '50.- 

51HHV 
m'tfNIfc 


EC  17  1956 


CCT261961 


REC'D  CD 
NOV  15  1957 


6t>* 


1.0 

t989 


., 


REC'D  LD 

MAR  18  1963 


C'D  US 

APR  2  6 1963 


LD  21-100m-9,'48_(B399sl6)476 


05912 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


